Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to explore a way of representing historical collections by examining the features of an event in historical documents and building an event-based ontology model. Design/methodology/approach To align with a domain-specific and upper ontology, the Basic Formal Ontology (BFO) model is adopted. Based on BFO, an event-based ontology for historical description (EOHD) is designed. To define events, event-related vocabularies are taken from the Library of Congress’ event types (2012). The three types of history and six kinds of changes are defined. Findings The EOHD model demonstrates how to apply the event ontology to biographical sketches of a creator history to link event types. Research limitations/implications The EOHD model has great potential to be further expanded to specific events and entities through different types of history in a full set of historical documents. Originality/value The EOHD provides a framework for modeling and semantically reforming the relationships of historical documents, which can make historical collections more explicitly connected in Web environments.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".