Data linking over RDF knowledge graphs: A survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Instance matching (IM) is the process of matching instances across Knowledge Bases (KBs) that refer to the same real‐world object (eg, the same person in two different KBs). Several approaches in the literature were developed to perform this process using different algorithmic techniques and search strategies. In this article, we aim to provide the rationale for IM and to survey the existing algorithms for performing this task. We begin by identifying the importance of such a process and define it formally. We also provide a new classification of these approaches depending on the “source of evidence,” which can be considered as the context information integrated explicitly or implicitly in the IM process. We survey and discuss the state‐of‐the‐art IM methods regarding the context information. We, furthermore, describe and compare different state‐of‐the‐art IM approaches in relation to several criteria. Such a comprehensive comparative study constitutes an asset and a guide for future research in IM.
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 | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".