MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2977865891 · doi:10.5220/0008169301740184

Toward Measuring Knowledge Loss due to Ontology Modularization

2019· article· en· W2977865891 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew LeClair, Ridha Khédri, Alicia Marinache

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSemantic Web and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceOntologyModular programmingTheoretical computer scienceDomain (mathematical analysis)RDFDomain knowledgeOntology-based data integrationHomomorphismDescription logicProgramming languageInformation retrievalSemantic WebSoftware engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper formalizes the graphical modularization technique, View Traversal, for an ontology-based system represented using the Domain Information System (DIS). Our work is motivated by the need for autonomous agents, within an ontology-based system, to automatically create their own views of the ontology to address the problems of ontology evolution and data integration found in an enterprise setting. Through DIS, we explore specific ontologies that give Cartesian perspectives of the domain, which allows modularization to be a means for agents to extract views of specific combinations of data. The theory of ideals from Boolean algebra is used to formalize a module. Then, with the use of homomorphisms, the quantity of knowledge within the module can be measured. More specifically, through the first isomorphism theorem, we establish that the loss of information is quantified by the kernel of the homomorphism. This constitutes a foundational step towards theories related to reasoning on partial domain knowledge, and is important for applications where an agent needs to quickly extract a view that contains a specific set of knowledge.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.758
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSemantic Web and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207