MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2395580821 · doi:10.13140/2.1.3317.6322

The MYNG 1.01 Suite for Deliberation RuleML 1.01: Taming the Language Lattice

2014· article· en· W2395580821 on OpenAlexaff
Tara Athan, Harold Boley

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSemantic Web and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRuleMLRELAX NGComputer scienceProgramming languageDatalogXMLSchema (genetic algorithms)DatabaseInformation retrievalDocument Structure DescriptionMarkup languageXHTMLWorld Wide WebDocument type definition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

harold.boley AT unb.ca Abstract. This article describes the development of MYNG to Version 1.01 in order to integrate the new Deliberation RuleML Version 1.01 Relax NG schema modules – and the RuleML sublanguages they define – into the RuleML language lattice, as well as to improve the function-ality of the MYNG GUI and REST interface. MYNG support is pro-vided for including the new modules of Deliberation RuleML 1.01 into customized schemas for sublanguages such as Datalog+, Hornlog+, and their many extensions. To also expose Disjunctive Datalog and exten-sions as RuleML sublanguages, the MYNG 1.01 GUI options are better aligned with the emergent structure of Deliberation RuleML features. To-gether, these modifications led to a vastly increased number of RuleML sublanguages in the lattice. To assist in ‘taming ’ this growth, we intro-duce the anchor lattice as an abstraction mechanism: a sublattice of the RuleML language lattice containing the most significant Deliberation RuleML sublanguages. A MYNG algorithm and interface to discover an-chors are offered. For each anchor, the highly modular Relax NG schema has been automatically converted into a monolithic XSD schema, maxi-mizing compatibility with XML tools. 1

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.907
Threshold uncertainty score0.396

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSemantic Web and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207