MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148210156 · doi:10.1109/icci.2004.37

Towards ontology construction for an industrial domain

2004· article· en· W2148210156 on OpenAlexaff
Christine W. Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE International Conference on Cognitive Informatics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSemantic Web and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOntologyComputer scienceKnowledge acquisitionPipeline (software)Domain knowledgeProcess ontologyKnowledge-based systemsDomain (mathematical analysis)Subject-matter expertKnowledge managementExpert systemSoftware engineeringUpper ontologyProcess (computing)Knowledge engineeringOpen Knowledge Base ConnectivityOntology-based data integrationArtificial intelligencePersonal knowledge managementProgramming languageOrganizational learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work presents the processes of knowledge acquisition and ontology construction for developing an expert system for monitoring and control of natural gas pipeline operations. Knowledge acquisition is the process of eliciting the cognitive mechanisms an expert uses in solving a particular application problem. And an ontology captures the shared conceptualizations that experts have about a particular area. Knowledge on the problem domain was acquired and analyzed using the inferential modeling technique. The analyzed knowledge was subsequently organized into an application ontology and represented in the knowledge modeling system. By formally representing the acquired knowledge in an application ontology, systematic organization of the knowledge elements implicit in the problem of monitoring and control of natural gas pipeline operations is achieved. The application ontology constructed can provide the basis for development of an expert system that can function as a decision support system for pipeline operators.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.788
Threshold uncertainty score0.620

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE International Conference on Cognitive InformaticsSame topicSemantic Web and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207