BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Beatrice Portelli

Beatrice Portelli contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Computation and LanguageInformation RetrievalMachine Learning

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
3topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

AILAB-Udine@SMM4H 22: Limits of Transformers and BERT Ensembles

This paper describes the models developed by the AILAB-Udine team for the SMM4H 22 Shared Task. We explored the limits of Transformer based models on text classification, entity extraction and entity normalization, tackling Tasks 1, 2, 5, 6 and 10. The main take-aways we got from participating in different tasks are: the overwhelming positive effects of combining different architectures when using ensemble learning, and the great potential of generative models for term normalization.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Increasing Adverse Drug Events extraction robustness on social media: case study on negation and speculation

In the last decade, an increasing number of users have started reporting Adverse Drug Events (ADE) on social media platforms, blogs, and health forums. Given the large volume of reports, pharmacovigilance has focused on ways to use Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques to rapidly examine these large collections of text, detecting mentions of drug-related adverse reactions to trigger medical investigations. However, despite the growing interest in the task and the advances in NLP, the robustness of these models in face of linguistic phenomena such as negations and speculations is an open research question. Negations and speculations are pervasive phenomena in natural language, and can severely hamper the ability of an automated system to discriminate between factual and nonfactual statements in text. In this paper we take into consideration four state-of-the-art systems for ADE detection on social media texts. We introduce SNAX, a benchmark to test their performance against samples containing negated and speculated ADEs, showing their fragility against these phenomena. We then introduce two possible strategies to increase the robustness of these models, showing that both of them bring significant increases in performance, lowering the number of spurious entities predicted by the models by 60% for negation and 80% for speculations.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

The COVID-19 Infodemic: Can the Crowd Judge Recent Misinformation Objectively?

Misinformation is an ever increasing problem that is difficult to solve for the research community and has a negative impact on the society at large. Very recently, the problem has been addressed with a crowdsourcing-based approach to scale up labeling efforts: to assess the truthfulness of a statement, instead of relying on a few experts, a crowd of (non-expert) judges is exploited. We follow the same approach to study whether crowdsourcing is an effective and reliable method to assess statements truthfulness during a pandemic. We specifically target statements related to the COVID-19 health emergency, that is still ongoing at the time of the study and has arguably caused an increase of the amount of misinformation that is spreading online (a phenomenon for which the term "infodemic" has been used). By doing so, we are able to address (mis)information that is both related to a sensitive and personal issue like health and very recent as compared to when the judgment is done: two issues that have not been analyzed in related work. In our experiment, crowd workers are asked to assess the truthfulness of statements, as well as to provide evidence for the assessments as a URL and a text justification. Besides showing that the crowd is able to accurately judge the truthfulness of the statements, we also report results on many different aspects, including: agreement among workers, the effect of different aggregation functions, of scales transformations, and of workers background / bias. We also analyze workers behavior, in terms of queries submitted, URLs found / selected, text justifications, and other behavioral data like clicks and mouse actions collected by means of an ad hoc logger.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access