Ontology-based workflow extraction from texts using word sense disambiguation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper introduces a method for automatic workflow extraction from texts using Process-Oriented Case-Based Reasoning (POCBR). While the current workflow management systems implement mostly different complicated graphical tasks based on advanced distributed solutions ( e.g. cloud computing and grid computation), workflow knowledge acquisition from texts using case-based reasoning represents more expressive and semantic cases representations. We propose in this context, an ontology-based workflow extraction framework to acquire processual knowledge from texts. Our methodology extends classic NLP techniques to extract and disambiguate tasks in texts. Using a graph-based representation of workflows and a domain ontology, our extraction process uses a context-based approach to recognize workflow components : data and control flows. We applied our framework in a technical domain in bioinformatics : i.e. phylogenetic analyses. An evaluation based on workflow semantic similarities on a gold standard proves that our approach provides promising results in the process extraction domain. Both data and implementation of our framework are available in : http://labo.bioinfo.uqam.ca/tgrowler .
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".