MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An Overview of Shallow and Deep Natural Language Processing for Ontology Learning

2011· book-chapter· en· W2492159292 on OpenAlex
Amal Zouaq

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

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsAthabasca UniversitySimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceOntologyNatural language processingArtificial intelligenceDependency (UML)Deep learningTask (project management)Semantic WebProcess (computing)Programming languageEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter gives an overview over the state-of-the-art in natural language processing for ontology learning. It presents two main NLP techniques for knowledge extraction from text, namely shallow techniques and deep techniques, and explains their usefulness for each step of the ontology learning process. The chapter also advocates the interest of deeper semantic analysis methods for ontology learning. In fact, there have been very few attempts to create ontologies using deep NLP. After a brief introduction to the main semantic analysis approaches, the chapter focuses on lexico-syntactic patterns based on dependency grammars and explains how these patterns can be considered as a step towards deeper semantic analysis. Finally, the chapter addresses the “ontologization” task that is the ability to filter important concepts and relationships among the mass of extracted knowledge.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.577
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.279 · 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