MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156184497 · doi:10.1109/mcetech.2008.29

Ontology Learning from Text Using Relational Concept Analysis

2008· article· en· W2156184497 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamed Rouane Hacene, Amedeo Napoli, Petko Valtchev, Yannick Toussaint, Rokia Bendaoud

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRough Sets and Fuzzy Logic
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormal concept analysisComputer scienceOntologyOntology learningSet (abstract data type)Information retrievalRelational databaseContext (archaeology)Lattice MinerRelational algebraCore (optical fiber)Natural language processingTheoretical computer scienceProcess ontologySemantic WebSuggested Upper Merged OntologyAlgorithmProgramming languageEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose an approach for semi-automated construction of ontologies from text whose core component is a relational concept analysis (RCA) framework which extends formal concept analysis (FCA), a lattice-theory paradigm for discovering abstractions within objects x attributes tables, to the processing of several sorts of individuals described both by own properties and inter-individual links. As a pre-processing, text analysis is used to transform a document collection into a set of data tables, or contexts, and inter-context relations. RCA then turns these into a set of concept lattices with inter-related concepts. A core ontology is derived from the lattices in a semi-automated manner, by translating relevant lattice elements into ontological concepts and relations, i.e., either taxonomic or transversal ones. The ontology is further refined by abstracting new transversal relations from the initially identified ones using RCA. We discuss as well the results of an application of the method to astronomy texts.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.685
Threshold uncertainty score0.458

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 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

Citations15
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRough Sets and Fuzzy LogicFrench-language works237,207