Ontologias bibliográficas e Web Semântica: limitações e propostas de investigação
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The literature on bibliographic data and ontologies on the Semantic Webidentifies problems, not in terms of data instances or their publicationin isolated sets, but regarding the ontologies that describe the underlying concepts, impacting on the quality of semantic interoperability and in sharing ontologies between systems.This paper elaborates on the adequacy of conceptual models and the limitations of FRBR -Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (IFLA, 1998, 2018)1to the Semantic Web; the absence of a common conceptual framework; the insufficiency of semantic mechanisms; the low and deficient reuse of external vocabularies; and the inadequacy of mapping methodologies being applied.A research project is presented proposing a solution to the semantic problems in sharing ontologies, through the creation of a conceptual reference model and a reference ontology as a high level mechanism for semantic relations and data validation using SHACL -Shapes Constraint Language (KNUBLAUCH e KONTOKOSTAS, 2017).
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 | 0.046 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.035 | 0.064 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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.
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".