Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39081638›Full record

ArticleJournal of research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology2021

Keyphrase Extraction for Technical Language Processing.

Alden Dima, Aaron Massey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2021. 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

2 authors.

Alden DimaNational Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, USA.
Aaron MasseyNational Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Keyphrase extraction is an important facet of annotation tools that offer the provision of the metadata necessary for technical language processing (TLP). Because TLP imposes additional requirements on typical natural language processing (NLP) methods, we examined TLP keyphrase extraction through the lens of a hypothetical toolkit which consists of a combination of text features and classifers suitable for use in low-resource TLP applications. We compared two approaches for keyphrase extraction: The frst which applied our toolkit-based methods that used only distributional features of words and phrases, and the second was the Maui automatic topic indexer, a well-known academic method. Performance was measured against two collections of technical literature: 1153 articles from Journal of Chemical Thermodynamics (JCT) curated by the National Institute of Standards and Technology Thermodynamics Research Center (TRC) and 244 articles from Task 5 of the Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval). Both collections have author-provided keyphrases available; the SemEval articles also have reader-provided keyphrases. Our fndings indicate that our toolkit approach was competitive with Maui when author-provided keyphrases were frst removed from the text. For the TRC-JCT articles, the Maui automatic topic indexer reported an F-measure of 29.4 % while our toolkit approach obtained an F-measure of 28.2 %. For the SemEval articles, our toolkit approach using a Naïve Bayes classifer resulted in an F-measure of 20.8 %, which outperformed Maui's F-measure of 18.8 %.

Indexed as

keyphrase extractiontechnical articlestechnical language processing

Identifiers

PMID39081638
PMCPMC11249704

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.