Lívia Dutra

h-index5
2papers

2 Papers

CLOct 30, 2025
Frame Semantic Patterns for Identifying Underreporting of Notifiable Events in Healthcare: The Case of Gender-Based Violence

Lívia Dutra, Arthur Lorenzi, Laís Berno et al.

We introduce a methodology for the identification of notifiable events in the domain of healthcare. The methodology harnesses semantic frames to define fine-grained patterns and search them in unstructured data, namely, open-text fields in e-medical records. We apply the methodology to the problem of underreporting of gender-based violence (GBV) in e-medical records produced during patients' visits to primary care units. A total of eight patterns are defined and searched on a corpus of 21 million sentences in Brazilian Portuguese extracted from e-SUS APS. The results are manually evaluated by linguists and the precision of each pattern measured. Our findings reveal that the methodology effectively identifies reports of violence with a precision of 0.726, confirming its robustness. Designed as a transparent, efficient, low-carbon, and language-agnostic pipeline, the approach can be easily adapted to other health surveillance contexts, contributing to the broader, ethical, and explainable use of NLP in public health systems.

CLOct 29, 2025
Evaluating the Impact of LLM-Assisted Annotation in a Perspectivized Setting: the Case of FrameNet Annotation

Frederico Belcavello, Ely Matos, Arthur Lorenzi et al.

The use of LLM-based applications as a means to accelerate and/or substitute human labor in the creation of language resources and dataset is a reality. Nonetheless, despite the potential of such tools for linguistic research, comprehensive evaluation of their performance and impact on the creation of annotated datasets, especially under a perspectivized approach to NLP, is still missing. This paper contributes to reduction of this gap by reporting on an extensive evaluation of the (semi-)automatization of FrameNet-like semantic annotation by the use of an LLM-based semantic role labeler. The methodology employed compares annotation time, coverage and diversity in three experimental settings: manual, automatic and semi-automatic annotation. Results show that the hybrid, semi-automatic annotation setting leads to increased frame diversity and similar annotation coverage, when compared to the human-only setting, while the automatic setting performs considerably worse in all metrics, except for annotation time.