MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ontologies in Expertise Finding Systems

2012· book-chapter· en· W2476137197 on OpenAlex
Maryam Fazel-Zarandi, Mark S. Fox, Eric Yu

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in knowledge acquisition, transfer, and management book series/Advances in knowledge acquisition, transfer and management book series · 2012
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicExpert finding and Q&A systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOntologyComputer scienceSoftware deploymentProcess (computing)Knowledge managementProcess managementSoftware engineeringData scienceManagement scienceSystems engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Knowledge Management Systems that enhance and facilitate the process of finding the right expert in an organization have gained much attention in recent years. This chapter explores the potential benefits and challenges of using ontologies for improving existing systems. A modeling technique from requirements engineering is used to evaluate the proposed system and analyze the impact it would have on the goals of the stakeholders. Based on the analysis, an ontology-based expertise finding system is proposed. This chapter also discusses the organizational settings required for the successful deployment of the system in practice.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.017
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.242 · 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