MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1563140451 · doi:10.17705/1jais.00201

Guidelines for Empirical Evaluations of Conceptual Modeling Grammars

2009· article· en· W1563140451 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrew Burton‐Jones, Yair Wand, Ron Weber

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Association for Information Systems · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSemantic Web and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of British ColumbiaQueensland University of Technology
KeywordsRule-based machine translationComputer scienceGrammarL-attributed grammarScripting languageEmpirical researchSemantics (computer science)Domain (mathematical analysis)Conceptual modelNatural language processingArtificial intelligenceContext-free grammarProgramming languageLinguisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OpenAlex records an abstract for this work, but it could not be fetched just now.

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)0.437
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.741
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.437
Threshold uncertainty score0.695

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4370.741
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0230.023
Science and technology studies0.0090.011
Scholarly communication0.0210.024
Open science0.0100.010
Research integrity0.0090.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.008

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 head0.155
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.240 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations116
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Association for Information Systems→Same topicSemantic Web and Ontologies→French-language works237,207→