Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents development of the distributed ontology management system (DOMS). The objective of DOMS was to provide a framework for handling the sharing, storage, versioning, and security of ontologies in a repository. The ontologies are represented by a generic object-oriented class hierarchy, which can be translated into an XML (extensible markup language) representation. To share ontologies, DOMS uses a distributed client-server architecture using TCP (transmission control protocol). A relational database is used for storing the ontologies in DOMS. A mapping from relational to the generic representation, which is object-oriented, can transfer data in and out of the database. Ontology versioning is performed by using the ontology's versioning information that is modeled in the database. To enhance system security, communication between the client and server is encrypted with SSL (secure socket layer). Additionally, DOMS uses an individual-based model to control access to the ontologies. An ontology editor has also been integrated with DOMS. This paper shows that DOMS provides some improvements upon existing ontology management systems, and discusses ways for further extension of the system
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".