Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40127378›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Optimising window size of semantic of classification model for identification of in-text citations based on context and intent.

Arshad Iqbal, Abdul Shahid, Muhammad Roman, Muhammad Tanvir Afzal, Umair Ul Hassan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

5 authors.

Arshad IqbalInstitute of Computing Kohat University of Science and Technology, Kohat, Pakistan.ORCID 0009-0008-9301-5901
Abdul ShahidNational College of Ireland, Dublin, Ireland.
Muhammad RomanInstitute of Computing Kohat University of Science and Technology, Kohat, Pakistan.
Muhammad Tanvir AfzalShifa School of Computing, Shifa Tameer-e-Millat University, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Umair Ul HassanJE Cairnes School of Business and Economics, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-3647-9020

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Citations in scientific literature act as channels for the sharing, transfer, and development of scientific knowledge. However, not all citations hold the same significance. Numerous taxonomies and machine learning models have been developed to analyze citations, but they often overlook the internal context of these citations. Moreover, it is worth noting that selecting the appropriate word embedding and classification models is crucial for achieving superior results. Word embeddings offer n-dimensional distributed representations of text, striving to capture the nuanced meanings of words. Deep learning-based word embedding techniques have garnered significant attention and found application in various Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks, including text classification, sentiment analysis, and citation analysis. Current state-of-the-art techniques often use small datasets with fixed window sizes, resulting in the loss of contextual meaning. This study leverages two benchmark datasets encompassing a substantial volume of in-text citations to guide the selection of an optimal word embedding window size and classification approaches. A comparative analysis of various window sizes for in-text citations is conducted to identify crucial citations effectively. Additionally, Word2Vec embedding is employed in conjunction with deep learning models and machine learning models such as Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), Gated Recurrent Units (GRUs), Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks, Support Vector Machines (SVM), Decision Trees, and Naive Bayes.The evaluation employs precision, recall, F1-score, and accuracy metrics for each combination of window sizes. The findings reveal that, particularly for lengthy in-text citations, larger citation windows are more adept at capturing the semantic essence of the references. Within the scope of this study, window sizes of 10 achieve superior accuracy and precision with both machine and deep learning models.

Indexed as

Natural Language ProcessingSemanticsDeep LearningHumansMachine Learning

Identifiers

PMID40127378
PMCPMC11932707

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.