talk · Tuesday 22 September · 16:15–⁠16:25 · SAL A

A closer look at steps needed to extract research-ready biodiversity data from legacy literature

Gerwin Kasperek · BHL at 20: A New Chapter for Biodiversity Literature and Data - Transforming BHL: Data Extraction, Semantic Navigation and Future Interfaces

Recording time 7:47:18–7:58:07Open on Vimeo ↗

Summaries and key moments are machine-produced. Check the recording for the speaker’s exact words.

The short versionLegacy literature data can only be unlocked by combining better OCR/NLP with taxonomic rigour that accounts for synonymy, shifting concepts, coreference and mixed languages.

Overview

What this was about

Gerwin Kasperek surveyed the obstacles to extracting research-ready data from legacy literature, using a 1969 German botanical article as an example. OCR errors propagate through NLP stages, and OCR quality evaluation itself is hard; synonyms are numerous (The Plant List had 44% synonyms and 33% accepted names) and abbreviated genus names are ambiguous across groups; taxon concepts shift over time (e.g. Linnaeus' Quercus robur) and modifiers like sensu lato/stricto matter; homonyms span taxa and places (Liparis, Paris); coreferences (C. viride, 'var. nanum') span sentences; and documents mix languages including Latin. He called for coordinated technical solutions (better OCR and its evaluation, domain-aware NLP, nomenclatural ontologies, per-sentence language detection) and taxonomic rigour (stronger backbones, Taxon Concept standards, temporal disambiguation).

Why it matters. Clarifies why AI extraction from historical texts is harder than it looks and which standards and tools are needed to get research-ready historical baselines.

Key ideas

In the room

  • Historical baselines of biodiversity need literature data.
  • OCR errors reduce keyword search reliability and degrade NER further.
  • Abbreviated names like E. rubiginosa can refer to plants, worms or fungi.
  • Shifting taxon concepts are more challenging than synonymy.
  • Coreference resolution needs general transformer NLP plus nomenclatural ontologies.
  • Many NLP tools assume one language per document; Latin is low-resource.
Jump in

Notable moments

In their words

Transcript

Automatically generated captions can contain mistakes, especially in names and technical terms. Times are relative to the room recording.

Read the transcript ↓
Loading transcript…
Programme abstract

A closer look at steps needed to extract research-ready biodiversity data from legacy literature

Gerwin Kasperek

Research-ready biodiversity data must follow established standards. However, this is not easily achieved in the case of data extracted from legacy literature. The literature is unstructured and heterogenous in format, content and style, which is why data extraction presents many challenges, some of which will be illustrated during this talk. One of the problems is synonymy, a problem which goes much further than mere taxonomic or nomenclatural synonymy. Another common phenomenon is coreference, this is, two or more expressions referring to the same object. Do we need to apply or develop computer-linguistic solutions for these problems... or can we just rely on LLMs to solve them for us? This talk will discuss approaches applied in the BIOfid text mining and annotation pipeline which is under development with a focus on a German-language corpus of biodiversity legacy literature, but we expect that this approach will also help solve problems with corpora in other languages.

Submitted to the conference programme before the talk, so the talk itself may differ.