MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2234612416 · doi:10.4230/dagrep.4.8.1

Querying and Reasoning Under Expressive Constraints (Dagstuhl Seminar 14331)

2014· article· en· W2234612416 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Michael Benedikt, Carsten Lutz, Balder ten Cate

Bibliographic record

VenueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSemantic Web and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniwersytet OpolskiUniversität UlmGoethe-Universität Frankfurt am MainClermont UniversitéUniversidad de ChileUniversity of WaterlooTechnische Universität WienTechnische Universität DarmstadtLibera Università di BolzanoUniversität BremenVienna Science and Technology FundUniversity of OxfordTechnische Universität DresdenImperial College LondonUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Pennsylvania
KeywordsDecidabilityComputer scienceKnowledge representation and reasoningRepresentation (politics)Constraint (computer-aided design)Constraint satisfactionConstraint satisfaction problemProgramming languageArtificial intelligenceTheoretical computer sciencePolitical scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report documents the program and the outcomes of Dagstuhl Seminar 14331 "Querying and Reasoning Under Expressive Constraints" which took place from August 10th to August 14th, 2014. The seminar aimed to bring together researchers in databases, knowledge representation, decidable fragments of first-order logic, and constraint satisfaction to identify and discuss common themes and technique as well as complementary ones, identify future research issues, and foster cooperation and cross-fertilization between the communities.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.117

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0100.006
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0340.018

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics)Same topicSemantic Web and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207