MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2952247164 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1204.5093

The Distributed Ontology Language (DOL): Ontology Integration and Interoperability Applied to Mathematical Formalization

2012· preprint· en· W2952247164 on OpenAlexaff
Christoph Lange, Oliver Kutz, Till Mossakowski, Michael Grüninger

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Birmingham Research Archive, E-prints Repository · 2012
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSemantic Web and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
KeywordsOntologyInteroperabilityComputer scienceOntology componentsUpper ontologyOntology-based data integrationModular designProcess ontologyAnnotationDescription logicInformation retrievalSoftware engineeringOntology alignmentWorld Wide WebProgramming languageSemantic WebArtificial intelligenceEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Distributed Ontology Language (DOL) is currently being standardized within the OntoIOp (Ontology Integration and Interoperability) activity of ISO/TC 37/SC 3. It aims at providing a unified framework for (1) ontologies formalized in heterogeneous logics, (2) modular ontologies, (3) links between ontologies, and (4) annotation of ontologies. This paper focuses on an application of DOL's meta-theoretical features in mathematical formalization: validating relationships between ontological formalizations of mathematical concepts in COLORE (Common Logic Repository), which provide the foundation for formalizing real-world notions such as spatial and temporal relations.

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 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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.009
Scholarly communication0.0110.020
Open science0.0030.011
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Birmingham Research Archive, E-prints RepositorySame topicSemantic Web and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207