MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792717671

Abductive Logic Grammars

2009· article· en· W2792717671 on OpenAlexaff
Henning Christiansen, Verónica Dahl

Bibliographic record

VenueRUCforsk (Roskilde University) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRewritingRule-based machine translationFormalism (music)SentenceTree-adjoining grammarDynamic logic (digital electronics)Definite clause grammarContext-sensitive grammarL-attributed grammarString (physics)Theoretical computer scienceArtificial intelligenceContext-free grammarProgramming languageMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

By extending logic grammars with constraint logic, we give them the ability to create knowledge bases that represent the meaning of an input string. Semantic information is thus defined through extra-grammatical means, and a sentence's meaning logically follows as a by-product of string rewriting. We formalize these ideas, and exemplify them both within and outside first-order logic, and for both fixed and dynamic knowledge bases. Within the latter variety, we consider the usual left-to-right derivations that are traditional in logic grammars, but also -- in a significant departure from the norm -- arbitrary (i.e., order-independent) derivations. We show that rich and accurate knowledge extraction from text can be achieved through the use of this new formalism

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptuallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptualmedium
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRUCforsk (Roskilde University)Same topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207