MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2551756190 · doi:10.5220/0006052100310042

Verifying and Mapping the Mereotopology of Upper-Level Ontologies

2016· article· en· W2551756190 on OpenAlexaff
Lydia Silva Muñoz, Michael Grüninger

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSemantic Web and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMereologyOntologyComputer scienceAxiomProcess ontologyDescription logicRepresentation (politics)Domain (mathematical analysis)Relation (database)Upper ontologyTheoretical computer scienceModular designOntology componentsOntology-based data integrationOntology engineeringOntology alignmentFormal ontologyInformation retrievalData miningSemantic WebMathematicsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Upper-level ontologies provide an account of the most basic, domain-independent, existing entities, such as time, space, objects, and processes. Ontology verification is the process by which a theory is checked to rule out unintended models, and possibly characterize missing intended ones. In this paper, we verify the core characterization of mereotopology of the Suggested Upper Merged Ontology (SUMO), and the mereology of the Descriptive Ontology for Linguistic and Cognitive Engineering (DOLCE), while relating their axiomatizations via ontology mapping. As a result, we propose the correction and addition of some axioms to the analyzed theories which eliminate unintended models and characterize missing ones. In addition, we show by formal means which is the relation existing between the axiomatization of mereology in both upper-level ontologies, and make available a modular representation in first-order logic of the SUMO characterization of mereotopology.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.805
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSemantic Web and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207