MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1512208874 · doi:10.63317/37g2fmwocmun

Flexible Ontology Population from Text: The OwlExporter

2010· article· en· W1512208874 on OpenAlexaff
René Witte, Ninus Khamis, Juergen Rilling

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSemantic Web and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOntologyComputer scienceUpper ontologyProcess ontologySuggested Upper Merged OntologyNatural language processingOntology-based data integrationPopulationOpen Biomedical OntologiesInformation retrievalArtificial intelligenceWeb Ontology LanguageXMLOntology languageFormal ontologyWorld Wide WebSemantic Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ontology population from text is becoming increasingly important for NLP applications.Ontologies in OWL format provide for a standardized means of modeling, querying, and reasoning over large knowledge bases.Populated from natural language texts, they offer significant advantages over traditional export formats, such as plain XML.The development of text analysis systems has been greatly facilitated by modern NLP frameworks, such as the General Architecture for Text Engineering (GATE).However, ontology population is not currently supported by a standard component.We developed a GATE resource called the OwlExporter that allows to easily map existing NLP analysis pipelines to OWL ontologies, thereby allowing language engineers to create ontology population systems without requiring extensive knowledge of ontology APIs.A particular feature of our approach is the concurrent population and linking of a domainand NLP-ontology, including NLP-specific features such as safe reasoning over coreference chains.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Software · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.009
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreSoftware

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations42
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSemantic Web and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207