greenelab / greenelab/crossref
Question on keyword coverage
Open
- Dominant language
- Jupyter Notebook
- Stars
- 66
- Forks
- 10
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
Many thanks for this work - we used it for a time before crossref started offering their own data dumps.
We did notice a small discrepancy in the keywords between this dump and the crossref dump. The dump here appears to have much better keyword coverage for papers (over 90%) while the current crossref dump has less than 5% coverage.
Where could I look to understand the methodology you used to gather keywords for this dump? We may need to use that methodology to augment what the crossref dump offers.
Thanks
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
Assessment
This issue has not been assessed yet.