MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988834855 · doi:10.1002/meet.1450420170

MARTT: Using induced knowledge base to automatically mark up plant taxonomic descriptions with XML

2005· article· en· W1988834855 on OpenAlexaff
Hong Cui

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Text Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarkup languageXMLComputer scienceRuleMLDomain (mathematical analysis)Knowledge baseXHTMLNatural language processingArtificial intelligenceInformation retrievalWorld Wide WebMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Despite the sub‐language nature of taxonomic descriptions of plants, researchers warned about the large variations among different collections of descriptions in terms of information contents and presentations. These variations impose a serious challenge to the development of automatic tools for the semantic markup of large volumes of free‐text descriptions. This paper presents a new approach to automatic markup of multiple collections of taxonomic descriptions with XML. The effectiveness of the approach was demonstrated with markup experiments using three contemporary floras. The markup system, MARTT, was based on supervised machine learning algorithms and enhanced by machine learned association rules representing certain types of domain knowledge and conventions. Experiments showed that our simple and efficient markup algorithm outperformed popular general‐purpose algorithms (including SVMs) across different floras. More importantly, the results demonstrated that the domain knowledge learned from one flora was useful for improving the markup performance on a second flora, especially on elements with sparse training examples. The system design and the evaluation of markup algorithms are reported in this paper. The study on the effectiveness of the induced knowledge base will be reported in a later paper. In this paper, common practices of flora authors and the potentials of MARTT system for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the creation, organization, and utilization of plant descriptions are also discussed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.256 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the American Society for Information Science and TechnologySame topicAdvanced Text Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207