Human-inspired Identification of High-level Concepts using OWA and Linguistic Quantifiers
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
Intelligent agent based system can be used to identify high-level concepts matching sets of keywords provided by users. A new human-inspired approach to concept identification in documents is introduced here. The proposed method takes keywords and builds concept structures based on them. These concept structures are represented as hierarchies of concepts (HofC). The ontology is used to enrich HofCs with terms and other concepts (sub-concepts) based on concept definitions, as well as with related concepts. Additionally, the approach uses levels of importance of terms defining the concepts. The levels of importance of terms are continuously updated based on a flow of documents using an Adaptive Assignment of Term Importance (AATI) schema. The levels of activation of concepts identified in a document that match these in the HofC are estimated using ordered weighted averaging (OWA) operators with linguistic quantifiers. A simple case study presented in the paper is designed to illustrate the 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 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