MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021285674 · doi:10.1109/icalt.2013.158

Knowledge Representation for Context and Sentiment Analysis

2013· article· en· W2021285674 on OpenAlexafffund
Ireti Fakinlede, Vive Kumar, Dunwei Wen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Text Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
FundersAlberta Innovates - Technology Futures
KeywordsComputer scienceRepresentation (politics)Context (archaeology)Knowledge acquisitionKnowledge representation and reasoningArtificial intelligenceKnowledge extractionInformation extractionNatural languageSentiment analysisNatural language processingMechanism (biology)Human–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a knowledge representation framework for natural language understanding. Here we propose an automated knowledge acquisition mechanism that mirrors information extraction in human-human interaction. This framework utilizes knowledge based automatic role labeling and automatic concept learning together with a conceptual structure that captures intent and context. The resulting framework is to be used to improve the agent's ability to engage in social interaction with humans.

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 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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.856
Threshold uncertainty score0.236

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Text Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207