MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1739211641

Building semantic mappings from databases to ontologies

2006· article· en· W1739211641 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInstitutional Research Information System (Università degli Studi di Trento) · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSemantic Web and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceInformation retrievalOntologyOntology-based data integrationSchema (genetic algorithms)Description logicUpper ontologyDatabase schemaSemantic WebProgramming languageDatabase design
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A recent special issue of AI Magazine (AAAI 2005) was dedicated to the topic of semantic integration — the problem of sharing data across disparate sources. At the core of the solution lies the discovery the “semantics” of different data sources. Ideally, the semantics of data are captured by a formal ontology of the domain together with a semantic mapping connecting the schema describing the data to the ontology. However, establishing the semantic mapping from a database schema to a formal ontology in terms of formal logic expressions is inherently difficult to automate, so the task was left to humans. In this paper, we report on our study (An, Borgida, & Mylopoulos 2005a; 2005b) of a semi-automatic tool, called MAPONTO, that assists users to discover plausible semantic relationships between a database schema (relational or XML) and an ontology, expressing them as logical formulas/rules.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.090
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.235 · 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