Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38805427›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Scientific text citation analysis using CNN features and ensemble learning model.

Khaled Alnowaiser

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Khaled AlnowaiserDepartment of Computer Engineering, College of Computer Engineering and Sciences, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Al-Kharj, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0009-0007-2717-6902

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Citation illustrates the link between citing and cited documents. Different aspects of achievements like the journal's impact factor, author's ranking, and peers' judgment are analyzed using citations. However, citations are given the same weight for determining these important metrics. However academics contend that not all citations can ever have equal weight. Predominantly, such rankings are based on quantitative measures and the qualitative aspect is completely ignored. For a fair evaluation, qualitative evaluation of citations is needed in addition to quantitative ones. Many existing works that use qualitative evaluation consider binary class and categorize citations as important or unimportant. This study considers multi-class tasks for citation sentiments on imbalanced data and presents a novel framework for sentiment analysis in in-text citations of research articles. In the proposed technique, features are retrieved using a convolutional neural network (CNN), and classification is performed using a voting classifier that combines Logistic Regression (LR) and Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD). The class imbalance problem is handled by the synthetic minority oversampling technique (SMOTE). Extensive experiments are performed in comparison with the proposed approach using SMOTE-generated data and machine learning models by term frequency (TF), and term frequency-inverse document frequency (TF-IDF) to evaluate the efficacy of the proposed approach for citation analysis. It is found that the proposed voting classifier using CNN features achieves an accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score of 0.99 for all. This work not only advances the field of sentiment analysis in academic citations but also underscores the importance of incorporating qualitative aspects in evaluating the impact and sentiments conveyed through citations.

Indexed as

Journal Impact FactorMachine LearningNeural Networks, ComputerHumansLogistic Models

Identifiers

PMID38805427
PMCPMC11132466

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.