Ontology alignment in geographical hard-soft information fusion systems
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Information fusion exists over many forms of hard data (e.g. from physical sensors) and soft data (e.g. from human reports) to interpret observations of real-world objects. As demonstrated from the Geographical Information Systems (GIS) community, there is a growing need for the linking and alignment of both (1) exploited physical imagery products and (2) derived ontological textual labels (semantic markup). Semantic markup can be done on both exploited data (e.g. automated image segmentation), as well as user reports (e.g. weather forecasts). Since the derived information is collected, stored, and displayed into distinct ontological structures by different agencies; ontological alignment is thus required whenever the semantic information is paired with distinct real-world imagery observations. In this paper, we explore issues of fusing hard and soft data as related to ontology alignment. A maritime domain situational awareness example with geographical imagery and textural ontologies is shown to demonstrate the need for ontology alignment to assist users for pragmatic surveillance.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it