Matching Transportation Ontologies with Word2Vec and Alignment Extraction Algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of intelligent transportation systems (ITSs) faces the challenge of integrating data from multiple unrelated sources. As one of the core technologies of knowledge integration in ITS, an ontology typically provides a normative definition of transportation domain that can be used as a reference for information integration. However, due to the subjectivity of domain experts, a concept may be expressed in multiple ways, yielding the ontology heterogeneity problem. Ontology matching (OM) is an effective method of addressing it, which is of help to further realize the mutual communication between the ontology-based ITSs. In this work, we first propose to use Word2Vec to model the entities in vector space and calculate their similarity values. Then, a stable marriage-based alignment extraction algorithm is presented to determine high-quality alignment. In the experiment, the performance of the proposal is tested by using the benchmark track of OAEI and real transportation ontologies. The experimental results show that our approach is able to obtain higher quality alignment results than OAEI’s participants and other state-of-the-art ontology matching techniques.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".