Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/2110363.2110482acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesihiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
panel

Detecting and using document structure in scientific text

Published: 28 January 2012 Publication History

Abstract

The detection of discourse structure of scientific documents is important for a number of tasks, including biocuration efforts, text summarisation, and the creation of improved formats for scientific publishing. Currently, many parallel efforts exist to detect a range of discourse elements at different levels of granularity, and for different purposes, including extraction of information from complex documents, alignment of parallel corpora across languages, and support for document summarization (particularly multi-document summarization). Another interesting class of applications comes from "bibliometrics" and "scientometrics". For example, for analysis of argument structure in full text articles from the scientific literature, it may be important to know where a particular reference is cited or where a particular statement is made (Background, Discussion, etc.). Another application might include tracking over time where (in what sections) an entity or concept is mentioned, to determine whether the mentions migrate from research claims into the "Background" or eventually to the "Methods" sections of articles, as the concept moves from "foreground" (subject of the research) to "background". In this panel we would like to, explore compare, contrast and evaluate different scientific discourse annotation schemes and tools, in order to answer questions such as:
What motivates a certain level, method, viewpoint for annotating scientific text?
What is the annotation level for a unit of argumentation: an event, a sentence, a segment? What are advantages and disadvantages of all three?
How easily can different schemes to be applied to texts? Are they easily trainable?
Which schemes are most portable? Can they be applied to both full papers and abstracts? Can they be applied to texts in different domains?
How granular should annotation schemes be? What are the advantages/disadvantages of fine and coarse grained annotation categories?
What correlations occur among document structure, argumentation, and rhetorical functions?
Is there a common framework that could be used for domain-independent document structure annotation?

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
IHI '12: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGHIT International Health Informatics Symposium
January 2012
914 pages
ISBN:9781450307819
DOI:10.1145/2110363

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 28 January 2012

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. document structure
  2. natural language processing
  3. scientific discourse annotation

Qualifiers

  • Panel

Conference

IHI '12
Sponsor:
IHI '12: ACM International Health Informatics Symposium
January 28 - 30, 2012
Florida, Miami, USA

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 222
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 03 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media