↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of methods for auto-coding causation of injury narratives

Overview of attention for article published in Accident Analysis & Prevention, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
Title
Comparison of methods for auto-coding causation of injury narratives
Published in
Accident Analysis & Prevention, December 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.aap.2015.12.006
Pubmed ID
Authors

S.J. Bertke, A.R. Meyers, S.J. Wurzelbacher, A. Measure, M.P. Lampl, D. Robins

Abstract

Manually reading free-text narratives in large databases to identify the cause of an injury can be very time consuming and recently, there has been much work in automating this process. In particular, the variations of the naïve Bayes model have been used to successfully auto-code free text narratives describing the event/exposure leading to the injury of a workers' compensation claim. This paper compares the naïve Bayes model with an alternative logistic model and found that this new model outperformed the naïve Bayesian model. Further modest improvements were found through the addition of sequences of keywords in the models as opposed to consideration of only single keywords. The programs and weights used in this paper are available upon request to researchers without a training set wishing to automatically assign event codes to large data-sets of text narratives. The utility of sharing this program was tested on an outside set of injury narratives provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics with promising results.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 56 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 26%
Researcher 7 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 11%
Student > Master 6 11%
Other 3 5%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 17 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 15 26%
Social Sciences 4 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 4%
Computer Science 2 4%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 25 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 September 2020.
All research outputs
#3,016,456
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Accident Analysis & Prevention
#578
of 4,178 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,611
of 399,621 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Accident Analysis & Prevention
#9
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,178 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 399,621 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.