Seeping Semantics: Linking Datasets Using Word Embeddings for Data Discovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Employees that spend more time finding relevant data than analyzing it suffer from a data discovery problem. The large volume of data in enterprises, and sometimes the lack of knowledge of the schemas aggravates this problem. Similar to how we navigate the Web, we propose to identify semantic links that assist analysts in their discovery tasks. These links relate tables to each other, to facilitate navigating the schemas. They also relate data to external data sources, such as ontologies and dictionaries, to help explain the schema meaning. We materialize the links in an enterprise knowledge graph, where they become available to analysts. The main challenge is how to find pairs of objects that are semantically related. We propose SEMPROP, a DAG of different components that find links based on syntactic and semantic similarities. SEMPROP is commanded by a semantic matcher which leverages word embeddings to find objects that are semantically related. We introduce coherent group, a technique to combine word embeddings that works better than other state of the art combination alternatives. We implement SEMPROP as part of Aurum, a data discovery system we are building, and conduct user studies, real deployments and a quantitative evaluation to understand the benefits of links for data discovery tasks, as well as the benefits of SEMPROP and coherent groups to find those links.
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 | 0.004 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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.
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".