MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122435612 · doi:10.1017/s0269888905000251

An overview of methods and tools for ontology learning from texts

2004· article· en· W2122435612 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Knowledge Engineering Review · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSemantic Web and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstituto de Ciencias del Mar y Limnología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoAtomic Energy of Canada LimitedComunidad de Madrid
KeywordsOntologyOntology learningComputer scienceProcess (computing)Information retrievalProcess ontologyOntology-based data integrationOntology alignmentUpper ontologyArtificial intelligenceData scienceNatural language processingSuggested Upper Merged OntologySemantic WebProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score0.320

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.400
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