Contextualized Linguistic Matching for Heterogeneous Data Source Integration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As one can expect, members of a common market are likely to work in quite different domains and use different kinds of schemas to describe their own business data. An ideal world would allow such heterogeneous data to be integrated into some (concrete or virtual) business data repository. It seems illusory to think that all members joining a common marketplace can directly provide data adhering to some predefined federative data scheme (e.g. standard ontology). More flexibility is usually required. Realistically, the integration of a new data source requires a mapping step allowing to compute semantic equivalences between the various schema concepts to be merged. This task can be alleviated by the use of semi-automatic mapping tools which evaluate semantic similarities between concepts. Most of these mapping systems currently rely on linguistic matching and are not so efficient when dealing with highly heterogeneous data sources. Some of them refer to general purpose dictionaries not taking into account the specificity of data sources' domain. To better cope with data source heterogeneity, this article presents INDIGO, a system which can compute semantic matching by taking into account data sources' context. The distinctive feature of INDIGO is to enrich data sources with semantic information extracted from their individual development artifacts. Thanks to this enrichment step, INDIGO can then compute a more accurate mapping between the two data sources thus enhanced. INDIGO was experimented on two case studies presented in this paper. INDIGO's performances are also compared to the results of three matching systems often cited in this research domain.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".