An overview of methods and tools for ontology learning from texts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ontology learning aims at reducing the time and efforts in the ontology development process. In recent years, several methods and tools have been proposed to speed up this process using different sources of information and different techniques. In this paper, we have reviewed 13 methods and 14 tools for semi-automatically building ontologies from texts and their relationships with the techniques each method follows. The methods have been grouped according to the main techniques followed and three groups have been identified: one based on linguistics, one on statistics, and one on machine learning. Regarding the tools, the criterion for grouping them, which has been the main aim of the tool, is to distinguish what elements of the ontology can be learned with each tool. According to this, we have identified three kinds of tools: tools for learning relations, tools for learning new concepts, and assisting tools for building up taxonomies.
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 | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
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".