Evaluating the Generation of Domain Ontologies in the Knowledge Puzzle Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the goals of the knowledge puzzle project is to automatically generate a domain ontology from plain text documents and use this ontology as the domain model in computer-based education. This paper describes the generation procedure followed by TEXCOMON, the knowledge puzzle ontology learning tool, to extract concept maps from texts. It also explains how these concept maps are exported into a domain ontology. Data sources and techniques deployed by TEXCOMON for ontology learning from texts are briefly described herein. Then, the paper focuses on evaluating the generated domain ontology and advocates the use of a three-dimensional evaluation: structural, semantic, and comparative. Based on a set of metrics, structural evaluations consider ontologies as graphs. Semantic evaluations rely on human expert judgment, and finally, comparative evaluations are based on comparisons between the outputs of state-of-the-art tools and those of new tools such as TEXCOMON, using the very same set of documents in order to highlight the improvements of new techniques. Comparative evaluations performed in this study use the same corpus to contrast results from TEXCOMON with those of one of the most advanced tools for ontology generation from text. Results generated by such experiments show that TEXCOMON yields superior performance, especially regarding conceptual relation learning.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".