From Glossaries to Ontologies: Disaster Management Domain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract- Our society’s reliance on a variety of critical infrastructures (CI) presents significant challenges for disaster preparedness, response and recovery. Experts from different domains including police, paramedics, firefighters and various other CI teams are involved in the fast paced response to a disaster, increasing the risk of miscommunication. To ensure clear communication, as well as to facilitate CI software interoperability, a common disaster ontology is needed. We propose using the knowledge stored in domain glossaries, vocabularies and dictionaries for the creation of a lightweight disaster management domain ontology. Glossaries, vocabularies and dictionaries are semi structured representations of domain knowledge, where significant human effort has been invested in choosing relevant terms, determining their definitions, acronyms, synonyms and sometimes even relations. We use that knowledge built into semi formatted documents for ontology learning. In particular, we look at five glossaries/vocabularies from the disaster management domain and analyze their content similarity and structure. A lightweight disaster ontology is created exploiting the structure of the semi-structured source documents.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".