MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Structuring the Cultural Domain with an Upper Ontology of Culture

2010· book-chapter· en· W2494446292 on OpenAlex

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 · 2010
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSemantic Web and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConceptualizationOntologyStructuringInteroperabilityDomain (mathematical analysis)Knowledge managementSociologyEpistemologyEngineering ethicsSocial scienceComputer scienceEngineeringPolitical scienceWorld Wide WebPhilosophyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Study of cultural similarities and differences is an important research topic for many disciplines such as psychology, sociology, anthropology, archaeology, museology, communication, management and business. This presents many potential opportunities for Information Technology specialists to develop culturally-aware technology, but it also raises the risk of inconsistent approaches of the cultural domain. In this chapter, the authors present the fundamental concepts of the Upper Ontology of Culture (UOC), a formal conceptualization of the cultural domain they developed by identifying the common backbone of culture-related disciplines and activities. As a neutral, theory-driven, and interdisciplinary conceptualization, the UOC shall provide guidelines for the development of culturally-aware applications, for the consistent computerization of cultural data and their interoperability, as well as for the development of culture-driven automatic reasoning processes.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score0.800

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.231 · 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