Systematic reviews, which entail the extraction of data from large numbers of scientific documents, are an ideal avenue for the application of machine learning. They are vital to many fields of science and philanthropy, but are very time-consuming and require experts. Yet the three main stages of a systematic review are easily done automatically: searching for documents can be done via APIs and scrapers, selection of relevant documents can be done via binary classification, and extraction of data can be done via sequence-labelling classification. Despite the promise of automation for this field, little research exists that examines the various ways to automate each of these tasks. We construct a pipeline that automates each of these aspects, and experiment with many human-time vs. system quality trade-offs. We test the ability of classifiers to work well on small amounts of data and to generalise to data from countries not represented in the training data. We test different types of data extraction with varying difficulty in annotation, and five different neural architectures to do the extraction. We find that we can get surprising accuracy and generalisability of the whole pipeline system with only 2 weeks of human-expert annotation, which is only 15% of the time it takes to do the whole review manually and can be repeated and extended to new data with no additional effort.

We highlight several issues in the evaluation of historical text normalization systems that make it hard to tell how well these systems would actually work in practice—i.e., for new datasets or languages; in comparison to more naïve systems; or as a preprocessing step for downstream NLP tools. We illustrate these issues and exemplify our proposed evaluation practices by comparing two neural models against a naïve baseline system. We show that the neural models generalize well to unseen words in tests on five languages; nevertheless, they provide no clear benefit over the naïve baseline for downstream POS tagging of an English historical collection. We conclude that future work should include more rigorous evaluation, including both intrinsic and extrinsic measures where possible.