MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032578329 · doi:10.1038/npre.2009.3576.1

MIREOT: the Minimum Information to Reference an External Ontology Term

2009· preprint· en· W2032578329 on OpenAlexaff
Mélanie Courtot, F. Gibson, Allyson Lister, James Malone, Daniel Schober, Ryan R. Brinkman, Alan Ruttenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Precedings · 2009
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSemantic Web and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
KeywordsComputer scienceOntologySet (abstract data type)Process ontologyWeb Ontology LanguageTerm (time)Upper ontologyOntology languageOpen Biomedical OntologiesInformation retrievalMechanism (biology)Ontology componentsResource (disambiguation)Semantic WebWorld Wide WebData scienceSuggested Upper Merged OntologyProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract While the Web Ontology Language (OWL) provides a mechanism to import ontologies, this mechanism is not always suitable. First, given the current state of editing tools and the issues they have working with large ontologies, direct OWL imports have sometimes proven impractical for day-to-day development. Second, ontologies chosen for integration may be under active development and not aligned with the chosen design principles. Importing heterogeneous ontologies in their entirety may lead to inconsistencies or unintended inferences. In this paper we propose a set of guidelines for importing required terms from an external resource into a target ontology. We describe the guidelines, their implementation, present some examples of application, and outline future work and extensions.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.012
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.008

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.282 · 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
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

Citations45
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature PrecedingsSame topicSemantic Web and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207