Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

A Survey on Knowledge Organization Systems of Research Fields: Resources and Challenges

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2409.04432 v3 pith:SSTR2QUP submitted 2024-09-06 cs.DL cs.AIcs.IR

classification cs.DLcs.AIcs.IR
keywords researchacademickossfieldsknowledgesystemsareaschallenges
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Knowledge Organization Systems (KOSs), such as term lists, thesauri, taxonomies, and ontologies, play a fundamental role in categorising, managing, and retrieving information. In the academic domain, KOSs are often adopted for representing research areas and their relationships, primarily aiming to classify research articles, academic courses, patents, books, scientific venues, domain experts, grants, software, experiment materials, and several other relevant products and agents. These structured representations of research areas, widely embraced by many academic fields, have proven effective in empowering AI-based systems to i) enhance retrievability of relevant documents, ii) enable advanced analytic solutions to quantify the impact of academic research, and iii) analyse and forecast research dynamics. This paper aims to present a comprehensive survey of the current KOS for academic disciplines. We analysed and compared 45 KOSs according to five main dimensions: scope, structure, curation, usage, and links to other KOSs. Our results reveal a very heterogeneous scenario in terms of scope, scale, quality, and usage, highlighting the need for more integrated solutions for representing research knowledge across academic fields. We conclude by discussing the main challenges and the most promising future directions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A Comparative Study of Task Adaptation Techniques of Large Language Models for Identifying Sustainable Development Goals

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    On a balanced benchmark built from the OSDG community dataset, fine-tuned LLaMa-2 13B achieves the highest macro F1 (92.4%), and small models such as Flan-T5-base (220M) reach 90.5%, close to fine-tuned GPT-3.5 (91.4%).

Pith tools