Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38948004›Full record

ArticleInternational journal on digital libraries2024

Creating and validating a scholarly knowledge graph using natural language processing and microtask crowdsourcing.

Allard Oelen, Markus Stocker, Sören Auer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal on digital libraries, 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

3 authors.

Allard OelenTIB - Leibniz Information Centre for Science and Technology, Hannover, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9924-9153
Markus StockerTIB - Leibniz Information Centre for Science and Technology, Hannover, Germany.
Sören AuerTIB - Leibniz Information Centre for Science and Technology, Hannover, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Due to the growing number of scholarly publications, finding relevant articles becomes increasingly difficult. Scholarly knowledge graphs can be used to organize the scholarly knowledge presented within those publications and represent them in machine-readable formats. Natural language processing (NLP) provides scalable methods to automatically extract knowledge from articles and populate scholarly knowledge graphs. However, NLP extraction is generally not sufficiently accurate and, thus, fails to generate high granularity quality data. In this work, we present TinyGenius, a methodology to validate NLP-extracted scholarly knowledge statements using microtasks performed with crowdsourcing. TinyGenius is employed to populate a paper-centric knowledge graph, using five distinct NLP methods. We extend our previous work of the TinyGenius methodology in various ways. Specifically, we discuss the NLP tasks in more detail and include an explanation of the data model. Moreover, we present a user evaluation where participants validate the generated NLP statements. The results indicate that employing microtasks for statement validation is a promising approach despite the varying participant agreement for different microtasks.

Indexed as

Crowdsourcing microtasksKnowledge graph validationScholarly knowledge graphsUser interface evaluation

Identifiers

PMID38948004
PMCPMC11208198

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.