T-GOWler: Discovering Generalized Process Models Within Texts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contemporary workflow management systems are driven by explicit process models specifying the interdependencies between tasks. Creating these models is a challenging and time-consuming task. Existing approaches to mining concrete workflows into models tackle design aspects related to the diverging abstraction levels of the tasks. Concrete workflow logs represent tasks and cases of concrete events-partially or totally ordered-grounding hidden multilevel (abstract) semantics and contexts. Relevant generalized events could be rediscovered within these processes. We propose, in this article, an ontology-based workflow mining system to generate patterns from sequences of events that are themselves extracted from texts. Our system T-GOWler (Generalized Ontology-based WorkfLow minER within Texts) is based on two ontology-based modules: a workflow extractor and a pattern miner. To this end, it uses two different ontologies: a domain one (to support workflow extraction from texts) and a processual one (to mine generalized patterns from extracted workflows).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".