Knowledge Translation: Extended Technical Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We introduce Kensho, a tool for generating mapping rules between two Knowledge Bases (KBs). To create the mapping rules, Kensho starts with a set of correspondences and enriches them with additional semantic information automatically identified from the structure and constraints of the KBs. Our approach works in two phases. In the first phase, semantic associations between resources of each KB are captured. In the second phase, mapping rules are generated by interpreting the correspondences in a way that respects the discovered semantic associations among elements of each KB. Kensho's mapping rules are expressed using SPARQL queries and can be used directly to exchange knowledge from source to target. Kensho is able to automatically rank the generated mapping rules using a set of heuristics. We present an experimental evaluation of Kensho and assess our mapping generation and ranking strategies using more than 50 synthesized and real world settings, chosen to showcase some of the most important applications of knowledge translation. In addition, we use three existing benchmarks to demonstrate Kensho's ability to deal with different mapping scenarios.
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.178 | 0.141 |
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".