MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150768946 · doi:10.1109/cscwd.2009.4968082

Instance-based domain ontological view creation

2009· article· en· W2150768946 on OpenAlexaff
Yunjiao Xue, Hamada Ghenniwa, Weiming Shen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSemantic Web and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceInformation retrievalSchema (genetic algorithms)Schema matchingSemantic heterogeneityOntologyIDEF1XCluster analysisSemantics (computer science)Semantic integrationData integrationOntology-based data integrationData miningArtificial intelligenceSemantic WebSemantic computingProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Today in many domains there are very limited explicit ontologies established for building information systems. The information systems have only schemas for their information repositories which to some extent imply the semantics of the information. Traditional ontology-driven semantic integration approaches cannot be directly applied in integrating these information systems. In our work we use the schemas and data instances of the information repositories to discover semantic correspondences between the schema elements and build a domain ontological view. We apply the hierarchical clustering technique on the data instances and use the clusters in the further analysis to reduce the cost of processing a large amount of data. The matching of schema elements is based on the probability distribution of the data instances. The preliminary results have demonstrated the effectiveness of this approach.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.004
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSemantic Web and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207