Development of Knowledge Base Using Human Experience Semantic Network for Instructive Texts
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An organized knowledge structure or knowledge base plays a vital role in retaining knowledge where data are processed and organized so that machines can understand. Instructive text (iText) consists of a set of instructions to accomplish a task or operation. Hence, iText includes a group of texts having a title or name of the task or operation and step-by-step instructions on how to accomplish the task. In the case of iText, storing only entities and their relationships with other entities does not always provide a solution for capturing knowledge from iTexts as it consists of parameters and attributes of different entities and their action based on different operations or procedures and the values differ for every individual operation or procedure for the same entity. There is a research gap in iTexts that created limitations to learn about different operations, capture human experience and dynamically update knowledge for every individual operation or instruction. This research presents a knowledge base for capturing and retaining knowledge from iTexts existing in operational documents. From each iTexts, small pieces of knowledge are extracted and represented as nodes linked to one another in the form of a knowledge network called the human experience semantic network (HESN). HESN is the crucial component of our proposed knowledge base. The knowledge base also consists of domain knowledge having different classified terms and key phrases of the specific domain.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it