The changing landscape of text mining - a review of approaches for ecology and evolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In ecology and evolutionary biology, synthesis and modelling of data from published literature is a common practice for generating insight and testing theories across systems. However, the tasks of searching, screening, and extracting data from literature are often arduous. Researchers may manually process hundreds to thousands of articles for systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and compiling synthetic datasets. As relevant articles expand to tens or hundreds of thousands, computer-based approaches can increase efficiency and dramatically improve the transparency and reproducibility of literature-based research. Methods available for text mining are rapidly changing due to developments in machine learning-based language models. Here we review the growing landscape of approaches, mapping them onto three broad paradigms (Frequency-based approaches, Traditional Natural Language Processing, and Deep learning-based language models). This review serves as an entry point to learn foundational and cutting edge concepts, vocabularies, and methods, and foster better integration of these tools into ecological and evolutionary research. We discuss approaches for modelling ecological texts, generating training data, developing custom models, and interacting with Large Language Models, and we present challenges and possible solutions to implementing these methods in ecology and evolution.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".