Efficient Scientific Full Text Classification: The Case of EICAT Impact Assessments

Marc Felix Brinner; Sina Zarrie{\ss}

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 39 references

Efficient Scientific Full Text Classification: The Case of EICAT Impact Assessments

T0 review · 3 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Training a sentence selector to keep only the 15 most relevant sentences per paper reduces input size and improves EICAT impact classification, with the evidence-based selector raising PubMedBERT macro F1 from 0.425 to 0.523.

desk verdict A useful new dataset and a systematic selection comparison whose central claim is plausible but under-evidenced because Table 1 reports no variance. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.06551 v1 pith:HRI3RLDI submitted 2025-02-10 cs.CL

Marc Felix Brinner , Sina Zarrie{ss} This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CL MSC 68T50

keywords EICATinvasivespeciesimpactscientificfull-textclassificationsentenceselectionPubMedBERTModernLlama-3.18Brandomizedsampling

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether feeding an entire scientific paper to a classifier is the best way to classify it, and answers no. Using a new dataset of 436 full-text invasion-biology papers labeled with IUCN EICAT impact categories, the authors train sentence selectors that keep the 15 most relevant sentences per paper. The evidence-based selector raises PubMedBERT macro F1 from 0.425 to 0.523, above a modern long-context encoder (ModernBERT, 0.433) and far above a local Llama-3.1 8B prompted on full text (0.272). Repeatedly sampling short inputs and voting across samples further improves most models, making even a random selector competitive. The upshot is that for this kind of scientific full-text classification, input curation plus sample voting can beat simply throwing more context at the model.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the sentence selector: a PubMedBERT model trained to score each sentence's usefulness, then used to rank sentences and keep the top 15 per paper. Four selector training signals are compared: human evidence annotations, Llama-3.1-generated usefulness labels, entropy of per-sentence classifier predictions, and leave-one-out importance scores. The second mechanism is randomized sampling with majority voting: drawing a new short input per training step (drawn from the top 30 sentences for targeted selectors) and aggregating 10 sampled predictions at evaluation. Together these carry the argument that input curation, not context length, is what drives performance.

What would settle it

Re-annotate a sample of papers using the exact PDF versions the IUCN assessors worked from and require exact or near-exact sentence matches; if the evidence-based selector no longer raises macro F1 above full-text input on that clean subset, the reported gain is an artifact of fuzzy matching rather than a property of sentence selection.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that sentence selection is an effective efficiency-accuracy lever: a two-step pipeline where a PubMedBERT-based selector ranks sentences and both the classifier and the LLM see only the top 15 sentences outperforms full-text input, and the best selector is trained on human evidence annotations from the EICAT assessments. Randomization experiments show that when a new random 15-sentence input is drawn each time a text is accessed and predictions are aggregated by majority vote over 10 samples, classification improves for most models and the random selector becomes competitive with the evidence selector. The authors interpret this as evidence that too much information hurts these classifiers, and that sample-level labels carry more usable signal than human evidence annotations or natural-language class descriptions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the evidence sentences matched from the retrieved PDFs are the same sentences the IUCN assessors actually read; because versions and PDF conversion differ, the paper used fuzzy word-overlap matching with Llama-3 validation, so if those alignments are wrong the training signal for the best selector is contaminated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A 70-times-smaller BERT classifier on selected sentences can outperform a local 8B LLM prompted with the entire text, so model scale is not the deciding factor here.
Long-context encoders are not automatically a better choice for scientific full-text classification: ModernBERT's full-text macro F1 of 0.433 trails the evidence-selected PubMedBERT score of 0.523.
Randomized short-input sampling with majority voting improves most models and makes even a random selector competitive, so costly selector training is not always needed.
Selection cuts inference cost: Llama test-set time drops from 116 to 65 seconds with importance-based selection while accuracy improves, breaking the usual accuracy-efficiency tradeoff.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Editorial inference: giving full-text baselines the species name, which the selectors implicitly use to filter out other-species content, would isolate how much of the gain comes from disambiguation rather than relevance ranking.
Editorial inference: the randomization result implies a selector-free variant: sample several short windows from the full text and majority-vote, which would remove selector training cost entirely.
Editorial inference: because fuzzy matching may misalign evidence sentences, the evidence selector's advantage should be re-tested on a subset of papers with assessor-verified PDFs before treating it as a stable gain.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's my take. The paper builds a new dataset, EICAT, that links full-text invasive-species papers to IUCN impact assessments with evidence sentences, and then compares a bunch of ways to cut the input down to 15 sentences before classifying. That's genuinely useful, and the comparison is systematic: human evidence, LLM-generated annotations, entropy, importance, and random selection, on both an encoder and a decoder model. The main finding—that input curation often beats full-text input, and that repeated random sampling with voting can make even a random selector competitive—comes through clearly in Table 1 and is internally consistent.

The strongest point in its favor is that the evaluation is on a held-out species split, so the headline result is not circular. The paper is also honest about its own failures: the evidence selector's NDCG against human annotations is only 0.541, and the LLM-based evidence and LLM selectors actually hurt Llama. That kind of reporting earns trust.

The soft spots are real, though. The stress-test note is on the money: every score in Table 1 is a point estimate with no error bars, no standard deviations, no significance tests, despite seven runs. The test split is 10% of 120 species—so on the order of a dozen species and maybe tens of documents—and Section 4.2 itself warns that macro F1 swings on a few samples. Under those conditions, the +0.098 between Evidence and Complete for PubMedBERT, and the random-selector improvements, could be sampling noise. I'm not saying they are; I'm saying the paper currently gives us no way to tell.

The data provenance is a second concern. Evidence sentences were matched by fuzzy word overlap with Llama-3 adjudication, and the paper notes version discrepancies between the PDFs they retrieved and the versions assessors read. That's a plausible source of noisy evidence labels. It doesn't break the central claim that selection helps classification, because that's evaluated on held-out labels, but it does mean the evidence selector's reported advantage might be partly an artifact of matching noise.

The abstract also overstates the decoder-side gains: evidence and LLM selectors make Llama worse, only entropy/importance help, so 'improve the performance of both encoder- and decoder-based language models' is too broad. And the GitHub link in the manuscript appears to contain a space and is currently broken.

None of this is load-bearing in the sense of disproving the central hypothesis. The paper deserves a serious referee. I'd recommend sending it to review, with the expectation of a revision that adds per-run scores and confidence intervals or significance tests, fixes the code link, and tightens the abstract. If the variance is as large as it likely is on this test set, some of the point estimates will shift; the paper needs to show which differences survive. But the dataset and the systematic comparison are a solid contribution, and the randomization finding is worth taking seriously.

Referee Report

3 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper introduces EICAT, a new dataset of 436 full-text scientific papers on invasive species, annotated with IUCN EICAT impact categories and human-extracted evidence sentences. The central experiments compare full-text classification using PubMedBERT, ModernBERT, and Llama-3.1 8B against a two-step pipeline that first trains a sentence selector (trained on human evidence, LLM annotations, classifier entropy, or classifier importance scores) and then classifies using only the 15 selected sentences. The authors report that most selection strategies improve macro/micro F1 over full-text input, that repeated random sampling of short inputs at test time further boosts performance, and that this comes with efficiency gains for the LLM. They conclude that input curation plus sample voting is an effective efficiency-accuracy lever for scientific full-text classification.

Significance. If the reported results are statistically reliable, the paper makes a useful practical contribution: it challenges the assumption that long-context models are automatically superior, provides a new dataset for a relevant classification task, and offers a generalizable pipeline that researchers with limited compute can adopt. The study is also comparatively broad, covering five selection strategies, two classifier families, and deterministic versus randomized evaluation. The authors ship the dataset and code, which supports reproducibility. However, the main quantitative claim currently rests on point estimates from a small test set with no confidence intervals or significance tests, and the dataset's evidence labels are produced by an unvalidated fuzzy matching procedure. These two issues are load-bearing for the paper's conclusions and need to be addressed before the results can be fully credited.

major comments (3)

[§4.2 / Table 1] No confidence intervals or significance tests are reported for any macro/micro F1 score in Table 1, despite the paper stating that seven runs were performed per model. The test split is 10% of 120 species (about 12 species, likely producing only tens of test documents), and Section 4.2 itself warns that macro F1 can be strongly influenced by misclassification of a few samples. Under these conditions, headline differences such as PubMedBERT Complete Input 0.425 vs. Evidence 0.523 macro F1 could plausibly arise from seed or test-split variation. The authors should report per-run scores, standard deviations, and results of a paired significance test (e.g., approximate randomization over the seven runs or bootstrap over test documents). Without this, the central claim that sentence selection improves classification is not statistically established.
[§3] The evidence annotations used to train the evidence-based selector are created by a fuzzy word-overlap matching procedure, with Llama-3 validating borderline matches, but the paper provides no quantitative validation of this procedure. The authors acknowledge discrepancies between the retrieved PDF versions and the papers used by IUCN assessors, and report 2,247 matched evidence sentences versus 2,226 original annotations, yet do not measure the precision of the matches. If many matched sentences are not the ones the assessors actually read, the evidence selector is trained on contaminated labels, which directly threatens the validity of the Evidence-row results in Table 1. The paper should include a human-validated precision estimate on a sample of matches and, ideally, an analysis of how classification performance changes with matching strictness.
[§5.2.1 / Table 2] Table 2 reports that the evidence-based selector achieves only 0.541 NDCG against the human evidence ground truth on the test set, a score the paper itself describes as mediocre. Given that this selector nevertheless yields the largest BERT improvement (macro F1 0.523 vs. 0.425 for full input), the paper should explain the apparent disconnect between selector agreement and classification gain. It is possible that the improvement comes not from faithfully recovering human evidence but from a side effect such as filtering out sentences about other species, as the authors themselves hypothesize. A detailed error analysis of the evidence selector's top-15 sentences would help the reader judge whether the result is driven by label quality or by a mechanism that could be achieved with a simpler rule.

minor comments (8)

[§2.1] The phrase "named entity recognition and and question answering" contains a duplicated "and" that should be removed.
[§4.2] The sentence "We hypothesize that this could be cause by two key factors" should read "caused by two key factors."
[§5.2.3] The phrase "filtering our non-relevant impacts" should read "filtering out non-relevant impacts."
[§5.2.3] The text "even less being classified asData Deficient" is missing a space between "as" and "Data Deficient."
[§3] The repository URL is written as "github.com/inas-argumentation/efficient full text classification" with spaces; it should be a single URL or a properly formatted repository name.
[§4.1] The seven runs per model should be described more precisely: please state whether different random seeds were used, whether the same data splits were reused across runs, and how the average scores were computed.
[§5.1] The design choices of k=15 selected sentences and the discretization thresholds (bottom 50%, top 20%, remaining 30%) are arbitrary; a short sensitivity analysis for k and for the thresholds would make the pipeline more robust and strengthen the conclusions.
[§5.2.4] When majority voting is applied to the 10 generated input samples during evaluation, the paper should specify how ties among class labels are broken.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the main sentence-selection claims are evaluated on a held-out species split, and the self-referential entropy/importance selectors do not force the held-out result.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that sentence selection improves full-text impact classification—is tested on a held-out test split of 10% of species, with all texts of a species kept in the same split to prevent species-level leakage (Section 3). The selectors are trained on the training set only (Section 5.1), and the final BERT and Llama classifiers are trained and evaluated on the selected sentences, with test labels never used to train the selectors. The entropy and importance selectors are self-referential in that they are derived from the same PubMedBERT classifiers whose performance they later improve, but this is not a reduction: the selectors produce sentence rankings, not final impact predictions, and the final classification is measured on unseen texts. The random selector baseline (Table 1) further demonstrates that the observed improvements are not an artifact of a particular selector's label construction. Self-citations to the authors' prior work (Brinner et al., 2022, 2024; Brinner and Zarrieß, 2024) are contextual and not load-bearing for the central result. The paper's own caveat that macro F1 can be strongly influenced by misclassification of a few samples (Section 4.2) is a statistical-reliability limitation, not a circularity. The fuzzy sentence-matching procedure in Section 3 is a data-provenance risk, but it does not make the derivation circular. Overall, no circular step was identified that would require flagging under the specified patterns.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central empirical claims rest on a standard supervised-learning pipeline; the only fitted quantities are ordinary model parameters. The analysis is free of invented theoretical entities. The main added load is a set of hand-chosen hyperparameters (selection size, context window, discretization thresholds, sampling pool, number of votes) and several domain assumptions about the reliability of the EICAT labels and fuzzy matching.

free parameters (6)

selection_size_k = 15
Number of sentences selected per text; chosen by hand as a compromise to include many relevant sentences while reducing input (Section 5.1).
context_window = 3 sentences before/after
Sentences surrounding the target sentence are provided as context to the selector; chosen by hand (Section 5.1).
entropy_importance_discretization = bottom 50%, top 20%, mid 30%
Continuous entropy/importance scores are discretized into three classes using within-text percentile thresholds chosen ad hoc (Section 5.1).
sampling_pool_size = top 30 sentences
For randomized selection, sampling is restricted to the top 30 ranked sentences; chosen by hand (Section 5.2.4).
num_sampling_runs = 10
During evaluation, 10 different input samples per text are generated for majority voting (Section 5.2.4).
llama_decoding = greedy
Greedy decoding used for determinism; no temperature sweep reported (Section 4.1).

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The six EICAT impact categories (Minimal, Minor, Moderate, Major, Massive, Data Deficient) as defined in the IUCN guidelines are mutually exclusive and exhaustive for the task, and the provided category descriptions are a sufficient operationalization for classification.
The task and all models (including the prompt in Figure 1) rely on these definitions; no independent validation of label reliability is provided.
domain assumption The fuzzy matching strategy used to align human evidence sentences to the retrieved full texts is accurate enough to produce clean training labels for the evidence selector.
Section 3 states exact matching was often infeasible due to version discrepancies and PDF artifacts; a fuzzy match plus Llama-3 validation was used. If false matches are frequent, the evidence selector learns noisy targets.
domain assumption Llama-3 8B's binary judgments (whether a citation is a scientific paper, and whether a fuzzy-matched sentence is a valid match) are reliable enough not to bias dataset composition.
Used in Section 3 to filter citations and validate sentence matches; no manual quality check is reported.
standard math Mean-pooling of chunk logits is an appropriate aggregation for the BERT full-text baseline.
Section 4.1: PubMedBERT chunks are classified and logits averaged; other pooling schemes could change baseline performance and hence the relative gain of sentence selection.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Efficient Scientific Full Text Classification: The Case of EICAT Impact Assessments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HRI3RLDI

@misc{pith2026250206551,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Efficient Scientific Full Text Classification: The Case of EICAT Impact Assessments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HRI3RLDI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.06551}
}

read the original abstract

This study explores strategies for efficiently classifying scientific full texts using both small, BERT-based models and local large language models like Llama-3.1 8B. We focus on developing methods for selecting subsets of input sentences to reduce input size while simultaneously enhancing classification performance. To this end, we compile a novel dataset consisting of full-text scientific papers from the field of invasion biology, specifically addressing the impacts of invasive species. These papers are aligned with publicly available impact assessments created by researchers for the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Through extensive experimentation, we demonstrate that various sources like human evidence annotations, LLM-generated annotations or explainability scores can be used to train sentence selection models that improve the performance of both encoder- and decoder-based language models while optimizing efficiency through the reduction in input length, leading to improved results even if compared to models like ModernBERT that are able to handle the complete text as input. Additionally, we find that repeated sampling of shorter inputs proves to be a very effective strategy that, at a slightly increased cost, can further improve classification performance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.06551 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

[1]

URL: " 'urlintro :=

ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year eprint doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block STRINGS urlintro eprinturl eprintpr...
[2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...
[3]

http://arxiv.org/abs/1:dir:dab86b296e3c3216e2241968f0d63b68e8209d3c Grobid

2008--2024. http://arxiv.org/abs/1:dir:dab86b296e3c3216e2241968f0d63b68e8209d3c Grobid . https://github.com/kermitt2/grobid

work page 2008
[4]

o ffler, and Birgitta K \

Nora Abdelmageed, Felicitas L \"o ffler, and Birgitta K \"o nig-Ries. 2023. Biodivbert: a pre-trained language model for the biodiversity domain. In SWAT4HCLS, pages 62--71

work page 2023
[5]

Wang, Scott C

Pablo Millan Arias, Niousha Sadjadi, Monireh Safari, ZeMing Gong, Austin T. Wang, Scott C. Lowe, Joakim Bruslund Haurum, Iuliia Zarubiieva, Dirk Steinke, Lila Kari, Angel X. Chang, and Graham W. Taylor. 2023. http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.02401 Barcodebert: Transformers for biodiversity analysis

arXiv 2023
[6]

Iz Beltagy, Kyle Lo, and Arman Cohan. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D19-1371 S ci BERT : A pretrained language model for scientific text . In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 3615--3620, Hong Kong, China...

doi:10.18653/v1/d19-1371 2019
[7]

Lutz Bornmann, Robin Haunschild, and Rüdiger Mutz. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00903-w Growth rates of modern science: a latent piecewise growth curve approach to model publication numbers from established and new literature databases . 8(1):1--15. Publisher: Palgrave

doi:10.1057/s41599-021-00903-w 2021
[8]

Marc Brinner, Tina Heger, and Sina Zarriess. 2022. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.wiesp-1.5 Linking a hypothesis network from the domain of invasion biology to a corpus of scientific abstracts: The INAS dataset . In Proceedings of the first Workshop on Information Extraction from Scientific Publications, pages 32--42, Online. Association for Computation...

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2022.wiesp-1.5 2022

Show all 39 references

[9]

Marc Brinner, Sina Zarrie , and Tina Heger. 2024. Weakly supervised claim localization in scientific abstracts. In Robust Argumentation Machines, pages 20--38, Cham. Springer Nature Switzerland

2024
[10]

Marc Felix Brinner and Sina Zarrie . 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.664 Rationalizing transformer predictions via end-to-end differentiable self-training . In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 11894...

2024 doi
[11]

Andry Castro, João Pinto, Luís Reino, Pavel Pipek, and César Capinha. 2024. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2024.102742 Large language models overcome the challenges of unstructured text data in ecology . Ecological Informatics, 82:102742

2024
[12]

Jaewoong Choi and Byungju Lee. 2024. Accelerating materials language processing with large language models. Communications Materials, 5(1):13

2024
[13]

John Dagdelen, Alexander Dunn, Sanghoon Lee, Nicholas Walker, Andrew S Rosen, Gerbrand Ceder, Kristin A Persson, and Anubhav Jain. 2024. Structured information extraction from scientific text with large language models. Nature Communications, 15(1):1418

2024
[14]

DeepSeek-AI et al. 2024. http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.19437 Deepseek-v3 technical report

2024 arXiv
[15]

DeepSeek-AI et al. 2025. http://arxiv.org/abs/2501.12948 Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning

2025 arXiv
[16]

Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N19-1423 BERT : Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding . In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North A merican Chapter of the Associat...

2019 doi
[17]

Jay DeYoung, Iz Beltagy, Madeleine van Zuylen, Bailey Kuehl, and Lucy Lu Wang. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.594 MS \^ 2: Multi-document summarization of medical studies . In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Proces...

2021 doi
[18]

Qingxiu Dong, Lei Li, Damai Dai, Ce Zheng, Jingyuan Ma, Rui Li, Heming Xia, Jingjing Xu, Zhiyong Wu, Tianyu Liu, Baobao Chang, Xu Sun, Lei Li, and Zhifang Sui. 2024. http://arxiv.org/abs/2301.00234 A survey on in-context learning

2024 arXiv
[19]

Aaron Grattafiori et al. 2024. http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.21783 The llama 3 herd of models

2024 arXiv
[20]

Yu Gu, Robert Tinn, Hao Cheng, Michael Lucas, Naoto Usuyama, Xiaodong Liu, Tristan Naumann, Jianfeng Gao, and Hoifung Poon. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1145/3458754 Domain-specific language model pretraining for biomedical natural language processing . ACM Trans. Comput. Healthcare, 3(1)

2021 doi
[21]

Jingwei Huang, Donghan M Yang, Ruichen Rong, Kuroush Nezafati, Colin Treager, Zhikai Chi, Shidan Wang, Xian Cheng, Yujia Guo, Laura J Klesse, et al. 2024. A critical assessment of using chatgpt for extracting structured data from clinical notes. npj Digital Medicine, 7(1):106

2024
[22]

IUCN. 2020. Guidelines for using the iucn environmental impact classification for alien taxa (eicat) categories and criteria. version 1.1

2020
[23]

Sarthak Jain, Madeleine van Zuylen, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Iz Beltagy. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.670 S ci REX : A challenge dataset for document-level information extraction . In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computationa...

2020 doi
[24]

Jiangshan Lai Jiqi Gu, Jianping Chen. 2024. https://doi.org/10.17520/biods.2024258 Application of large language models in biodiversity research . Biodiversity Science, 32(9):24258

2024 doi
[25]

Vamsi Krishna Kommineni, Waqas Ahmed, Birgitta Koenig-Ries, and Sheeba Samuel. 2024. https://doi.org/10.3897/biss.8.136735 Automating information retrieval from biodiversity literature using large language models: A case study . Biodiversity Information Science and Standards, ...

2024 doi
[26]

Jinhyuk Lee, Wonjin Yoon, Sungdong Kim, Donghyeon Kim, Sunkyu Kim, Chan Ho So, and Jaewoo Kang. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btz682 Biobert: a pre-trained biomedical language representation model for biomedical text mining . Bioinformatics, 36(4):1234--1240

2019 doi
[27]

T Osawa, N Tsutsumida, et al. 2023. The role of large language models in ecology and biodiversity conservation: Opportunities and challenges

2023
[28]

Huitong Pan, Qi Zhang, Eduard Dragut, Cornelia Caragea, and Longin Jan Latecki. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00592 Dmdd: A large-scale dataset for dataset mentions detection . Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 11:1132--1146

2023 doi
[29]

Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9

2019
[30]

Münker, Mark Schutera, Christof M

Luca Rettenberger, Marc F. Münker, Mark Schutera, Christof M. Niemeyer, Kersten S. Rabe, and Markus Reischl. 2024. https://doi.org/doi:10.1515/cdbme-2024-2129 Using large language models for extracting structured information from scientific texts . Current Directions in Biomed...

2024 doi
[31]

Zhyar Rzgar K Rostam and Gábor Kertész. 2024. http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.00098 Fine-tuning large language models for scientific text classification: A comparative study

2024 arXiv
[32]

Lee Giles

Athar Sefid and C. Lee Giles. 2022. Scibertsum: Extractive summarization for scientific documents. In Document Analysis Systems, pages 688--701, Cham. Springer International Publishing

2022
[33]

Amanpreet Singh, Mike D ' Arcy, Arman Cohan, Doug Downey, and Sergey Feldman. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.338 S ci R ep E val: A multi-format benchmark for scientific document representations . In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in...

2023 doi
[34]

Sudipta Singha Roy and Robert E. Mercer. 2024. Enhancing scientific document summarization with research community perspective and background knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2024 Joint International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Language Resources and Evaluation (L...

2024
[35]

Yu Song, Santiago Miret, and Bang Liu. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.201 M at S ci- NLP : Evaluating scientific language models on materials science language tasks using text-to-schema modeling . In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association fo...

2023 doi
[36]

Hugo Touvron et al. 2023. http://arxiv.org/abs/2307.09288 Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models

2023 arXiv
[37]

Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, ukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30. Curran Associates, Inc

2017
[38]

Benjamin Warner, Antoine Chaffin, Benjamin Clavié, Orion Weller, Oskar Hallström, Said Taghadouini, Alexis Gallagher, Raja Biswas, Faisal Ladhak, Tom Aarsen, Nathan Cooper, Griffin Adams, Jeremy Howard, and Iacopo Poli. 2024. http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.13663 Smarter, better, fa...

2024 arXiv
[39]

Qi Zhang, Zhijia Chen, Huitong Pan, Cornelia Caragea, Longin Jan Latecki, and Eduard Dragut. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.726 S ci ER : An entity and relation extraction dataset for datasets, methods, and tasks in scientific documents . In Proceedings of t...

2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

URL: " 'urlintro :=

ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year eprint doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block STRINGS urlintro eprinturl eprintpr...

[2] [2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

[3] [3]

http://arxiv.org/abs/1:dir:dab86b296e3c3216e2241968f0d63b68e8209d3c Grobid

2008--2024. http://arxiv.org/abs/1:dir:dab86b296e3c3216e2241968f0d63b68e8209d3c Grobid . https://github.com/kermitt2/grobid

work page 2008

[4] [4]

o ffler, and Birgitta K \

Nora Abdelmageed, Felicitas L \"o ffler, and Birgitta K \"o nig-Ries. 2023. Biodivbert: a pre-trained language model for the biodiversity domain. In SWAT4HCLS, pages 62--71

work page 2023

[5] [5]

Wang, Scott C

Pablo Millan Arias, Niousha Sadjadi, Monireh Safari, ZeMing Gong, Austin T. Wang, Scott C. Lowe, Joakim Bruslund Haurum, Iuliia Zarubiieva, Dirk Steinke, Lila Kari, Angel X. Chang, and Graham W. Taylor. 2023. http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.02401 Barcodebert: Transformers for biodiversity analysis

arXiv 2023

[6] [6]

Iz Beltagy, Kyle Lo, and Arman Cohan. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D19-1371 S ci BERT : A pretrained language model for scientific text . In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 3615--3620, Hong Kong, China...

doi:10.18653/v1/d19-1371 2019

[7] [7]

Lutz Bornmann, Robin Haunschild, and Rüdiger Mutz. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00903-w Growth rates of modern science: a latent piecewise growth curve approach to model publication numbers from established and new literature databases . 8(1):1--15. Publisher: Palgrave

doi:10.1057/s41599-021-00903-w 2021

[8] [8]

Marc Brinner, Tina Heger, and Sina Zarriess. 2022. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.wiesp-1.5 Linking a hypothesis network from the domain of invasion biology to a corpus of scientific abstracts: The INAS dataset . In Proceedings of the first Workshop on Information Extraction from Scientific Publications, pages 32--42, Online. Association for Computation...

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2022.wiesp-1.5 2022