MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2362131317

Research on Methods of Concepts Acquisition in Domain Ontology Construction

2009· article· en· W2362131317 on OpenAlexaff
Guang Li

Bibliographic record

VenueInformation Sciences · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Computational Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Air (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOntologyProcess ontologyComputer scienceSuggested Upper Merged OntologyDomain (mathematical analysis)Upper ontologyOntology-based data integrationConstruct (python library)AdaptabilityOntology alignmentInformation retrievalOntology Inference LayerOWL-SMathematicsSemantic WebProgramming languageEpistemology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper discusses the importance of concepts acquisition in domain ontology construction,and introduces methods of concepts acquisition of domain ontology.Using examples which we construct domain ontology of food safety explains each method.At last the paper discusses adaptability of each method and the characteristic of ontology concepts,it will be helpful to the construction of domain ontology.

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)0.002
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.509
Threshold uncertainty score0.171

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.523
Teacher spread0.435 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInformation SciencesSame topicAdvanced Computational Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207