MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167015927 · doi:10.1109/cscwd.2010.5471972

A Frame-based Ontological view Specification Language

2010· article· en· W2167015927 on OpenAlexaff
Yunjiao Xue, Hamada Ghenniwa, Weiming Shen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSemantic Web and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceOntologyFrame (networking)Ontology languageXMLDescription logicUpper ontologyKnowledge representation and reasoningWeb Ontology LanguageOntology-based data integrationRepresentation (politics)Programming languageInformation retrievalNatural language processingArtificial intelligenceSemantic WebWorld Wide WebEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Semantic integration is crucial for successful collaboration between heterogeneous information systems in an open environment. Traditional ontology-driven approaches rely on the availability of explicit ontologies. However, in many domains, this prerequisite cannot be met. In order to address this issue, this paper investigates the theoretical foundation of ontologies and extends the traditional ontology concept to an ontological view concept. To explicitly and formally specify the ontological views, a Frame-based Ontological view Specification Language (FOSL) is proposed. This language is based on the Frame knowledge representation paradigm and uses XML as the encoding. A prototype environment that supports semantic integration based on ontological views specified with FOSL is introduced.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.008
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSemantic Web and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207