MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003301733 · doi:10.1109/ipdpsw.2014.81

A Parallel Framework for Handling Non-determinism with Expressive Description Logics

2014· article· en· W2003301733 on OpenAlexafffund
Jocelyne Faddoul, Wendy MacCaull

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSemantic Web and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAtlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
KeywordsComputer scienceLaptopCardinality (data modeling)Semantic reasonerTheoretical computer scienceDescription logicDeterminismProgramming languageOntologyMulti-core processorDistributed computingParallel computingArtificial intelligenceDatabaseOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multicore processors are nowadays widespread across desktop, laptop, server, and even smartphone and tablets devices. The rise of such powerful execution environments calls for new parallel and distributed Description Logics (DLs) reasoning algorithms. Many sophisticated optimizations have been explored and have considerably enhanced DL reasoning with light ontologies. Non-determinism remains a main source of complexity for implemented systems handling ontologies relying on more expressive logics. In this work, we explore handling non-determinism with DL languages enabling qualified cardinality restrictions. We implement a fork/join parallel framework into our hybrid algebraic reasoner, which handles qualified cardinality restrictions and nominals using in-equation solving. Preliminary evaluation shows encouraging results.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSemantic Web and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207