Document Open Access Logo

What, When, and Where Do You Mean? Detecting Spatio-Temporal Concept Drift in Scientific Texts

Authors Meilin Shi , Krzysztof Janowicz, Zilong Liu , Mina Karimi , Ivan Majic , Alexandra Fortacz

PDF HTML 5

Files

Thumbnail PDF
PDF
LIPIcs.GIScience.2025.16.pdf
  • Filesize: 3.01 MB
  • 18 pages
HTML5 Logo HTML (experimental)
LIPIcs.GIScience.2025.16.html

Document Identifiers

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Information systems → Digital libraries and archives
  • Computing methodologies → Information extraction
  • Information systems → Ontologies
Keywords
  • Concept Drift
  • Ontology
  • Large Language Models
  • Research Data Management

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads
    0
    Metadata Views

Abstract

Inundated by the rapidly expanding AI research nowadays, the research community requires more effective research data management than ever. A key challenge lies in the evolving nature of concepts embedded in the growing body of research publications. As concepts evolve over time (e.g., keywords like global warming become more commonly referred to as climate change), past research may become harder to find and interpret in a modern context. This phenomenon, known as concept drift, affects how research topics and keywords are understood, categorized, and retrieved. Beyond temporal drift, such variations also occur across geographic space, reflecting differences in local policies, research priorities, and so forth. In this work, we introduce the notion of spatio-temporal concept drift to capture how concepts in scientific texts evolve across both space and time. Using a scientometric dataset in geographic information science, we detect how research keywords drifted across countries and years using word embeddings. By detecting spatio-temporal concept drift, we can better align archival research and bridge regional differences, ensuring scientific knowledge remains findable and interoperable within evolving research landscapes.

Cite As Get BibTex

Meilin Shi, Krzysztof Janowicz, Zilong Liu, Mina Karimi, Ivan Majic, and Alexandra Fortacz. What, When, and Where Do You Mean? Detecting Spatio-Temporal Concept Drift in Scientific Texts. In 13th International Conference on Geographic Information Science (GIScience 2025). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 346, pp. 16:1-16:18, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2025) https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.GIScience.2025.16

Author Details

Meilin Shi
  • Department of Geography and Regional Research, University of Vienna, Austria
Krzysztof Janowicz
  • Department of Geography and Regional Research, University of Vienna, Austria
Zilong Liu
  • Department of Geography and Regional Research, University of Vienna, Austria
Mina Karimi
  • Department of Geography and Regional Research, University of Vienna, Austria
Ivan Majic
  • Department of Geography and Regional Research, University of Vienna, Austria
Alexandra Fortacz
  • Department of Geography and Regional Research, University of Vienna, Austria

Supplementary Materials

References

  1. Hervé Abdi and Lynne J Williams. Principal component analysis. Wiley interdisciplinary reviews: computational statistics, 2(4):433-459, 2010. URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/wics.101.
  2. Hamed Babaei Giglou, Jennifer D’Souza, and Sören Auer. LLMs4OL: Large language models for ontology learning. In International Semantic Web Conference, pages 408-427. Springer, 2023. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47240-4_22.
  3. David Bamman, Chris Dyer, and Noah A Smith. Distributed representations of geographically situated language. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 828-834, 2014. URL: https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/p14-2134.
  4. Lawerence Barsalou. Concepts and meaning. In L. Barsalou, W. Yeh, B. Luka, K. Olseth, K. Mix, and L. Wu, editors, Chicago Linguistic Society 29: Papers From the Parasession on Conceptual Representations, pages 23-61. University of Chicago, 1993. Google Scholar
  5. Iz Beltagy, Kyle Lo, and Arman Cohan. SciBERT: A pretrained language model for scientific text. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2019. URL: https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D19-1371.
  6. Tolga Bolukbasi, Kai-Wei Chang, James Y Zou, Venkatesh Saligrama, and Adam T Kalai. Man is to computer programmer as woman is to homemaker? debiasing word embeddings. Advances in neural information processing systems, 29, 2016. URL: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1607.06520.
  7. Aylin Caliskan, Joanna J Bryson, and Arvind Narayanan. Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biases. Science, 356(6334):183-186, 2017. URL: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal4230.
  8. Giuseppe Capobianco, Danilo Cavaliere, Sabrina Senatore, et al. Ontodrift: a semantic drift gauge for ontology evolution monitoring. In CEUR Workshop Proceedings, volume 2821, pages 1-10. CEUR-WS, 2020. URL: https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2821/paper1.pdf.
  9. Christophe Claramunt. Ontologies for geospatial information: Progress and challenges ahead. Journal of Spatial Information Science, 20:35-41, 2020. URL: https://doi.org/10.5311/JOSIS.2020.20.666.
  10. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2019. URL: https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N19-1423.
  11. Stephanie Duce and Krzysztof Janowicz. Microtheories for spatial data infrastructures-accounting for diversity of local conceptualizations at a global level. In Geographic Information Science: 6th International Conference, GIScience 2010, Zurich, Switzerland, September 14-17, 2010. Proceedings 6, pages 27-41. Springer, 2010. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15300-6_3.
  12. Max J Egenhofer and David M Mark. Naive geography. In Spatial Information Theory A Theoretical Basis for GIS: International Conference COSIT'95 Semmering, Austria, September 21-23, 1995 Proceedings 2, pages 1-15. Springer, 1995. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-60392-1_1.
  13. Fahim Faisal and Antonios Anastasopoulos. Geographic and geopolitical biases of language models. In Duygu Ataman, editor, Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Multi-lingual Representation Learning (MRL), pages 139-163, Singapore, December 2023. Association for Computational Linguistics. URL: https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.mrl-1.12.
  14. Antske Fokkens, Serge Ter Braake, Isa Maks, Davide Ceolin, et al. On the semantics of concept drift: Towards formal definitions of semantic change. Drift-a-LOD@ EKAW, 2016. URL: https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1799/Drift-a-LOD2016_paper_2.pdf.
  15. Aldo Gangemi, Nicola Guarino, Claudio Masolo, Alessandro Oltramari, and Luc Schneider. Sweetening ontologies with DOLCE. In International conference on knowledge engineering and knowledge management, pages 166-181. Springer, 2002. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45810-7_18.
  16. Hongyu Gong, S. Bhat, and Pramod Viswanath. Enriching word embeddings with temporal and spatial information. In Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, 2020. URL: https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.conll-1.1.
  17. Nicola Guarino. Formal ontology, conceptual analysis and knowledge representation. International journal of human-computer studies, 43(5-6):625-640, 1995. URL: https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1995.1066.
  18. Ramanathan Guha, Rob McCool, and Eric Miller. Semantic search. In Proceedings of the 12th international conference on World Wide Web, pages 700-709, 2003. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/775152.775250.
  19. Prashant Gupta and Mark Gahegan. Categories are in flux, but their computational representations are fixed: That’s a problem. Transactions in GIS, 24(2):291-314, 2020. URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/tgis.12602.
  20. William L. Hamilton, Jure Leskovec, and Dan Jurafsky. Diachronic word embeddings reveal statistical laws of semantic change. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1489-1501, 2016. URL: https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P16-1141.
  21. Krzysztof Janowicz, Song Gao, Grant McKenzie, Yingjie Hu, and Budhendra Bhaduri. GeoAI: spatially explicit artificial intelligence techniques for geographic knowledge discovery and beyond, 2020. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2019.1684500.
  22. Krzysztof Janowicz, Martin Raubal, and Werner Kuhn. The semantics of similarity in geographic information retrieval. Journal of Spatial Information Science, 2:29-57, 2011. URL: https://doi.org/10.5311/JOSIS.2011.2.3.
  23. Werner Kuhn. Semantic reference systems. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 17(5):405-409, 2003. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/1365881031000114116.
  24. Werner Kuhn, Martin Raubal, and Peter Gärdenfors. Cognitive semantics and spatio-temporal ontologies. Spatial Cognition & Computation, 7(1):3-12, 2007. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/13875860701337835.
  25. Stephen C Levinson. Language and space. Annual review of Anthropology, 25(1):353-382, 1996. URL: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.25.1.353.
  26. Maurice Lineman, Yuno Do, Ji Yoon Kim, and Gea-Jae Joo. Talking about climate change and global warming. PloS one, 10(9):e0138996, 2015. URL: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138996.
  27. Huu Tan Mai, Cuong Xuan Chu, and Heiko Paulheim. Do LLMs really adapt to domains? an ontology learning perspective. In International Semantic Web Conference, pages 126-143. Springer, 2024. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-77844-5_7.
  28. David M. Mark, Barry Smith, and Barbara Tversky. Ontology and geographic objects: An empirical study of cognitive categorization. In Conference On Spatial Information Theory, pages 283-298, 1999. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48384-5_19.
  29. Tomas Mikolov, Kai Chen, Gregory S. Corrado, and Jeffrey Dean. Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2013. URL: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1301.3781.
  30. Malvina Nissim, Rik van Noord, and Rob van der Goot. Fair is better than sensational: Man is to doctor as woman is to doctor. Computational Linguistics, 46(2):487-497, 2020. URL: https://doi.org/10.1162/coli_a_00379.
  31. Charles Kay Ogden and Ivor Armstrong Richards. The Meaning of Meaning: A Study of the Influence of Language upon Thought and of the Science of Symbolism. Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1923. URL: https://doi.org/10.2307/2015195.
  32. Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher D Manning. GloVe: Global vectors for word representation. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP), pages 1532-1543, 2014. URL: https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/d14-1162.
  33. Dharmen Punjani, Kuldeep Singh, Andreas Both, Manolis Koubarakis, Iosif Angelidis, Konstantina Bereta, Themis Beris, Dimitris Bilidas, Theofilos Ioannidis, Nikolaos Karalis, et al. Template-based question answering over linked geospatial data. In Proceedings of the 12th workshop on geographic information retrieval, pages 1-10, 2018. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3281354.3281362.
  34. Martin Raubal. Formalizing conceptual spaces. In Formal ontology in information systems, proceedings of the third international conference (FOIS 2004), volume 114, pages 153-164. Citeseer, 2004. Google Scholar
  35. Martin Raubal. Representing concepts in time. In Spatial Cognition VI. Learning, Reasoning, and Talking about Space: International Conference Spatial Cognition 2008, Freiburg, Germany, September 15-19, 2008. Proceedings 6, pages 328-343. Springer, 2008. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-87601-4_24.
  36. M Andrea Rodriguez and Max J. Egenhofer. Determining semantic similarity among entity classes from different ontologies. IEEE transactions on knowledge and data engineering, 15(2):442-456, 2003. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2003.1185844.
  37. Maja Rudolph and David Blei. Dynamic embeddings for language evolution. In Proceedings of the 2018 world wide web conference, pages 1003-1011, 2018. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3178876.3185999.
  38. Christoph Schlieder. Digital heritage: Semantic challenges of long-term preservation. Semantic Web, 1(1-2):143-147, 2010. URL: https://doi.org/10.3233/SW-2010-0013.
  39. Angela Schwering. Approaches to semantic similarity measurement for geo-spatial data: a survey. Transactions in GIS, 12(1):5-29, 2008. URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9671.2008.01084.x.
  40. Meilin Shi, Krzysztof Janowicz, Zilong Liu, Mina Karimi, Ivan Majic, and Alexandra Fortacz. Defining concept drift and its variants in research data management: A scientometric case study on geographic information science. Transactions in GIS, 29(3):e70058, 2025. URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/tgis.70058.
  41. Cogan Shimizu and Pascal Hitzler. Accelerating knowledge graph and ontology engineering with large language models. Journal of Web Semantics, page 100862, 2025. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2025.100862.
  42. Barry Smith and David M Mark. Geographical categories: an ontological investigation. International journal of geographical information science, 15(7):591-612, 2001. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/13658810110061199.
  43. Barry Smith and David M Mark. Do mountains exist? towards an ontology of landforms. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 30(3):411-427, 2003. URL: https://doi.org/10.1068/b12821.
  44. Thanos G Stavropoulos, Stelios Andreadis, Efstratios Kontopoulos, and Ioannis Kompatsiaris. SemaDrift: A hybrid method and visual tools to measure semantic drift in ontologies. Journal of Web Semantics, 54:87-106, 2019. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2018.05.001.
  45. Wolfgang G Stock. Concepts and semantic relations in information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(10):1951-1969, 2010. URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21382.
  46. Laurens Van der Maaten and Geoffrey Hinton. Visualizing data using t-sne. Journal of machine learning research, 9(11), 2008. Google Scholar
  47. Saskia Van Putten, Carolyn O’Meara, Flurina Wartmann, Joanne Yager, Julia Villette, Claudia Mazzuca, Claudia Bieling, Niclas Burenhult, Ross Purves, and Asifa Majid. Conceptualisations of landscape differ across european languages. Plos one, 15(10):e0239858, 2020. URL: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239858.
  48. Stella Verkijk, Ritten Roothaert, Romana Pernisch, and Stefan Schlobach. Do you catch my drift? on the usage of embedding methods to measure concept shift in knowledge graphs. In Proceedings of the 12th Knowledge Capture Conference 2023, pages 70-74, 2023. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3587259.3627555.
  49. Shenghui Wang, Stefan Schlobach, and Michel Klein. Concept drift and how to identify it. Journal of Web Semantics, 9(3):247-265, 2011. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2011.05.003.
  50. Mark D Wilkinson, Michel Dumontier, IJsbrand Jan Aalbersberg, Gabrielle Appleton, Myles Axton, Arie Baak, Niklas Blomberg, Jan-Willem Boiten, Luiz Bonino da Silva Santos, Philip E Bourne, et al. The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific data, 3(1):1-9, 2016. URL: https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18.
  51. Xiaohuan Wu, Weihua Dong, Lun Wu, and Yu Liu. Data and Code for "Research Themes of Geographical Information Science during 1991-2020: A Retrospective Bibliometric Analysis", 2022. URL: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.19242654.v1.
  52. Bo Yan, Krzysztof Janowicz, Gengchen Mai, and Song Gao. From ITDL to Place2Vec: Reasoning about place type similarity and relatedness by learning embeddings from augmented spatial contexts. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGSPATIAL international conference on advances in geographic information systems, pages 1-10, 2017. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3139958.3140054.
  53. Wei Zhai, Xueyin Bai, Yu Shi, Yu Han, Zhong-Ren Peng, and Chaolin Gu. Beyond Word2vec: An approach for urban functional region extraction and identification by combining Place2vec and POIs. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 74:1-12, 2019. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2018.11.008.
  54. Yating Zhang, Adam Jatowt, Sourav S Bhowmick, and Katsumi Tanaka. The past is not a foreign country: Detecting semantically similar terms across time. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 28(10):2793-2807, 2016. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2016.2591008.
  55. Yating Zhang, Adam Jatowt, and Katsumi Tanaka. Is tofu the cheese of asia?: Searching for corresponding objects across geographical areas. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web Companion, pages 1033-1042, 2017. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3041021.3055132.
Any Issues?
X

Feedback on the Current Page

CAPTCHA

Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted to Dagstuhl Publishing

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail
© 2023-2025 Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH About DROPS Imprint Privacy Contact