Towards Technological Approaches for Concept Maps Mining from Text
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concept maps are resources for the representation and construction of knowledge. They allow showing, through concepts and relationships, how knowledge about a subject is organized. Technological advances have boosted the development of approaches for the automatic construction of a concept map, to facilitate and provide the benefits of that resource more broadly. Due to the need to better identify and analyze the functionalities and characteristics of those approaches, we conducted a detailed study on technological approaches for automatic construction of concept maps published between 1994 and 2016 in the IEEE Xplore, ACM and Elsevier Science Direct data bases. From this study, we elaborate a categorization defined on two perspectives, Data Source and Graphic Representation, and fourteen categories. That study collected 30 relevant articles, which were applied to the proposed categorization to identify the main features and limitations of each approach. A detailed view on these approaches, their characteristics and techniques are presented enabling a quantitative analysis. In addition, the categorization has given us objective conditions to establish new specification requirements for a new technological approach aiming at concept maps mining from texts.
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 | 0.015 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.035 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".