MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026136988 · doi:10.4018/jcit.2009072101

The Ontological Stance for a Manufacturing Scenario

2009· article· en· W2026136988 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Grüninger

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cases on Information Technology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSemantic Web and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOntologyComputer scienceSoftware engineeringProcess ontologyOntology-based data integrationTerminologyUpper ontologySemantic integrationInferenceSoftwareSoftware deploymentProcess (computing)Suggested Upper Merged OntologyOntology alignmentInformation retrievalArtificial intelligenceSemantic WebProgramming languageSemantic Web StackLinguisticsDomain knowledge

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The semantic integration of software systems can be supported through a shared understanding of the terminology in their respective ontologies. In practice, however, the author is faced with the additional challenge that few applications have an explicitly axiomatized ontology. To address this challenge, we adopt the Ontological Stance, in which we can model a software application as if it were an inference system with an axiomatized ontology, and use this ontology to predict the set of sentences that the inference system determines to be entailed or satisfiable. This chapter gives an overview of a deployment of the Process Specification Language (PSL) Ontology as the interchange ontology for the semantic integration of three manufacturing software applications currently being used in industry -- a process modeller, a process planner, and a scheduler.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.011
Scholarly communication0.0070.011
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0050.006
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations11
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cases on Information TechnologySame topicSemantic Web and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207