A comparative analysis of 21 literature search engines

With increasing number of bibliographic software, scientists and health professionals either make a subjective choice of tool(s) that could suit their needs or face a challenge of analyzing multiple features of a plethora of search programs. There is an urgent need for a thorough comparative analysis of the available bio-literature scanning tools, from the user’s perspective. We report results of the first time semi-quantitative comparison of 21 programs, which can search published (partial or full text) documents in life science areas. The observations can assist life science researchers and medical professionals to make an informed selection among the programs, depending on their search objectives. 
Some of the important findings are: 
1. Most of the hits obtained from Scopus, ReleMed, EBImed, CiteXplore, and HighWire Press were usually relevant (i.e. these tools show a better precision than other tools). 
2. But a very high number of relevant citations were retrieved by HighWire Press, Google Scholar, CiteXplore and Pubmed Central (they had better recall). 
3. HWP and CiteXplore seemed to have a good balance of precision and recall efficiencies. 
4. PubMed Central, PubMed and Scopus provided the most useful query systems. 
5. GoPubMed, BioAsk, EBIMed, ClusterMed could be more useful among the tools that can automatically process the retrieved citations for further scanning of bio-entities such as proteins, diseases, tissues, molecular interactions, etc. 
The authors suggest the use of PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar and HighWire Press - for better coverage, and GoPubMed - to view the hits categorized based on the MeSH and gene ontology terms. The article is relavant to all life science subjects.
&#xa

Overview of VideoCLEF 2008: Automatic generation of topic-based feeds for dual language audio-visual content

The VideoCLEF track, introduced in 2008, aims to develop and evaluate tasks related to analysis of and access to multilingual multimedia content. In its first year, VideoCLEF piloted the Vid2RSS task, whose main subtask was the classification of dual language video (Dutchlanguage television content featuring English-speaking experts and studio guests). The task offered two additional discretionary subtasks: feed translation and automatic keyframe extraction. Task participants were supplied with Dutch archival metadata, Dutch speech transcripts, English speech transcripts and 10 thematic category labels, which they were required to assign to the test set videos. The videos were grouped by class label into topic-based RSS-feeds, displaying title, description and keyframe for each video. Five groups participated in the 2008 VideoCLEF track. Participants were required to collect their own training data; both Wikipedia and general web content were used. Groups deployed various classifiers (SVM, Naive Bayes and k-NN) or treated the problem as an information retrieval task. Both the Dutch speech transcripts and the archival metadata performed well as sources of indexing features, but no group succeeded in exploiting combinations of feature sources to significantly enhance performance. A small scale fluency/adequacy evaluation of the translation task output revealed the translation to be of sufficient quality to make it valuable to a non-Dutch speaking English speaker. For keyframe extraction, the strategy chosen was to select the keyframe from the shot with the most representative speech transcript content. The automatically selected shots were shown, with a small user study, to be competitive with manually selected shots. Future years of VideoCLEF will aim to expand the corpus and the class label list, as well as to extend the track to additional tasks

CHORUS Deliverable 2.2: Second report - identification of multi-disciplinary key issues for gap analysis toward EU multimedia search engines roadmap

After addressing the state-of-the-art during the first year of Chorus and establishing the existing landscape in multimedia search engines, we have identified and analyzed gaps within European research effort during our second year. In this period we focused on three directions, notably technological issues, user-centred issues and use-cases and socio- economic and legal aspects. These were assessed by two central studies: firstly, a concerted vision of functional breakdown of generic multimedia search engine, and secondly, a representative use-cases descriptions with the related discussion on requirement for technological challenges. Both studies have been carried out in cooperation and consultation with the community at large through EC concertation meetings (multimedia search engines cluster), several meetings with our Think-Tank, presentations in international conferences, and surveys addressed to EU projects coordinators as well as National initiatives coordinators. Based on the obtained feedback we identified two types of gaps, namely core technological gaps that involve research challenges, and “enablers”, which are not necessarily technical research challenges, but have impact on innovation progress. New socio-economic trends are presented as well as emerging legal challenges

Automated legal sensemaking: the centrality of relevance and intentionality

Introduction: In a perfect world, discovery would ideally be conducted by the senior litigator who is responsible for developing and fully understanding all nuances of their client’s legal strategy. Of course today we must deal with the explosion of electronically stored information (ESI) that never is less than tens-of-thousands of documents in small cases and now increasingly involves multi-million-document populations for internal corporate investigations and litigations. Therefore scalable processes and technologies are required as a substitute for the authority’s judgment. The approaches taken have typically either substituted large teams of surrogate human reviewers using vastly simplified issue coding reference materials or employed increasingly sophisticated computational resources with little focus on quality metrics to insure retrieval consistent with the legal goal. What is required is a system (people, process, and technology) that replicates and automates the senior litigator’s human judgment. In this paper we utilize 15 years of sensemaking research to establish the minimum acceptable basis for conducting a document review that meets the needs of a legal proceeding. There is no substitute for a rigorous characterization of the explicit and tacit goals of the senior litigator. Once a process has been established for capturing the authority’s relevance criteria, we argue that literal translation of requirements into technical specifications does not properly account for the activities or states-of-affairs of interest. Having only a data warehouse of written records, it is also necessary to discover the intentions of actors involved in textual communications. We present quantitative results for a process and technology approach that automates effective legal sensemaking