MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964256409 · doi:10.1002/meet.14504301261

Linking and thinking: The use of typed informational relationships in aid of semantic navigation

2006· article· en· W1964256409 on OpenAlexafffund
Richard Kopak, Chia‐Ning Chiang

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSemantic Web and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)HypertextComprehensionMeaning (existential)Semantics (computer science)World Wide WebHuman–computer interactionTaxonomy (biology)Semantic WebInformation retrievalPsychologyProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract An underlying challenge of hypertext systems is that of maintaining coherence in meaning when traversing nodes. Functional link typing is one method that has been proposed to address this challenge with the consequent action of increasing global coherence within the hypertext and facilitating increased comprehension. As such, functional link types are efficacious for navigating through the meaning relationships (semantics) of a hypertext and reduce reliance of physical navigation metaphors. The study described here employs a previously developed link type taxonomy in a Web‐based journal publishing system (OJS). The goal is to enable readers to create functionally meaningful relationships between journal articles with the outcome of enhancing later, semantic based, navigation through the collection as a whole.

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)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.010
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the American Society for Information Science and TechnologySame topicSemantic Web and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207