Proposed threshold-based and rule-based approaches to detecting duplicates in bibliographic database

M. Amin, Deris Stiawan, Ermatita Ermatita, R. Budiarto
{"title":"Proposed threshold-based and rule-based approaches to detecting duplicates in bibliographic database","authors":"M. Amin, Deris Stiawan, Ermatita Ermatita, R. Budiarto","doi":"10.11591/eei.v13i3.7665","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Bibliographic databases are used to measure the performance of researchers, universities and research institutions. Thus, high data quality is required and data duplication is avoided. One of the weaknesses of the threshold-based approach in duplication detection is the low accuracy level. Therefore, another approach is required to improve duplication detection. This study proposes a method that combines threshold-based and rule-based approaches to perform duplication detection. These two approaches are implemented in the comparison stage. The cosine similarity function is used to create weight vectors from the features. Then, the comparison operator is used to determine whether the pair of records are grouped as duplication or not. Three research databases: Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, and Google Scholar (GS) on the Science and Technology Index (SINTA) database are investigated. Rule 4 and Rule 5 provide the best performance. For WoS dataset, the accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-measure values were 100.00%. For Scopus dataset, the accuracy and precision values were 100.00%, recall: 98.00%, and the F1-measure value is 98.00%. For GS dataset, the accuracy value was 100.00%, precision: 99.00%, recall: 97.00%, and the F1-measure value is 98.00%. The proposed method is potential tool for accurate detection on duplication records in publication databases.","PeriodicalId":502860,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of Electrical Engineering and Informatics","volume":"30 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bulletin of Electrical Engineering and Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11591/eei.v13i3.7665","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Bibliographic databases are used to measure the performance of researchers, universities and research institutions. Thus, high data quality is required and data duplication is avoided. One of the weaknesses of the threshold-based approach in duplication detection is the low accuracy level. Therefore, another approach is required to improve duplication detection. This study proposes a method that combines threshold-based and rule-based approaches to perform duplication detection. These two approaches are implemented in the comparison stage. The cosine similarity function is used to create weight vectors from the features. Then, the comparison operator is used to determine whether the pair of records are grouped as duplication or not. Three research databases: Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, and Google Scholar (GS) on the Science and Technology Index (SINTA) database are investigated. Rule 4 and Rule 5 provide the best performance. For WoS dataset, the accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-measure values were 100.00%. For Scopus dataset, the accuracy and precision values were 100.00%, recall: 98.00%, and the F1-measure value is 98.00%. For GS dataset, the accuracy value was 100.00%, precision: 99.00%, recall: 97.00%, and the F1-measure value is 98.00%. The proposed method is potential tool for accurate detection on duplication records in publication databases.
基于阈值和规则的书目数据库重复检测方法建议
书目数据库用于衡量研究人员、大学和研究机构的绩效。因此,对数据质量的要求很高,而且要避免数据重复。基于阈值的重复检测方法的缺点之一是准确率较低。因此,需要另一种方法来改进重复检测。本研究提出了一种结合基于阈值和基于规则的方法来进行重复检测的方法。这两种方法在比较阶段实施。余弦相似度函数用于根据特征创建权重向量。然后,使用比较算子来确定这对记录是否被归类为重复。三个研究数据库研究了科技索引(SINTA)数据库中的 Web of Science(WoS)、Scopus 和 Google Scholar(GS)。规则 4 和规则 5 的性能最佳。对于 WoS 数据集,准确率、精确率、召回率和 F1-measure 值均为 100.00%。Scopus 数据集的准确率和精确率为 100.00%,召回率为 98.00%,F1-measure 值为 100.00%:98.00% ,F1-measure 值为 98.00%。GS 数据集的准确率为 100.00%,精确率为 99.00%,召回率为 97.00%,F1-measure 值为 98.00%:97.00% ,F1-measure 值为 98.00%。所提出的方法是准确检测出版物数据库中重复记录的潜在工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信