Papers › Investigating Software Usage in the Social Sciences: A Knowledge Graph Approach
Investigating Software Usage in the Social Sciences: A Knowledge Graph Approach
David Schindler, Benjamin Zapilko, Frank Krüger
Knowledge about the software used in scientific investigations is necessary for different reasons, including provenance of the results, measuring software impact to attribute developers, and bibliometric software citation analysis in general. Additionally, providing information about whether and how the software and the source code are available allows an assessment about the state and role of open source software in science in general. While such analyses can be done manually, large scale analyses require the application of automated methods of information extraction and linking. In this paper, we present SoftwareKG - a knowledge graph that contains information about software mentions from more than 51,000 scientific articles from the social sciences. A silver standard corpus, created by a distant and weak supervision approach, and a gold standard corpus, created by manual annotation, were used to train an LSTM based neural network to identify software mentions in scientific articles. The model achieves a recognition rate of .82 F-score in exact matches. As a result, we identified more than 133,000 software mentions. For entity disambiguation, we used the public domain knowledge base DBpedia. Furthermore, we linked the entities of the knowledge graph to other knowledge bases such as the Microsoft Academic Knowledge Graph, the Software Ontology, and Wikidata. Finally, we illustrate, how SoftwareKG can be used to assess the role of software in the social sciences.
Code
No code repository is listed for this paper in the archive or in Syntology's graph.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Tasks
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
| Task | Dataset | Model | Metric | Value | Rank at snapshot | Leaderboard | Report |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Named Entity Recognition (NER) | SoSciSoCi | Bi-LSTM-CRF (SSC->GSC) | F1 | 0.82 | #1 of 1 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Named Entity Recognition (NER) | SoSciSoCi | Bi-LSTM-CRF (SSC->GSC) | Precision | 0.83 | #1 of 1 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Named Entity Recognition (NER) | SoSciSoCi | Bi-LSTM-CRF (SSC->GSC) | Recall | 0.82 | #1 of 1 | Archive leaderboard | report |
Ranks are positions in the archive's leaderboards as they stood at the 2025-07-28 snapshot. Results published since then are not among these rows, so a rank here is not a current standing.
Methods
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections