Evaluation of Digital Competence Profiles Using Dialetheic Logic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Professional profiles are unstructured documents where the knowledge and experience of the editor predominate, presenting inconsistencies and ambiguities in terms of the competencies they contain, making complicated the recognition of knowledge and skills necessary for the proposal of university study programs. Also, the identification of knowledge and skills in digital academic profiles present difficulties due to their inconsistencies. This work proposes analyzing the contradictions or ambivalences found in the academic and professional competencies published in digital media (for example, web pages or social networks) through a model of axioms based on dialetheic logic. Notably, the model considers five types of natural language phenomena: Vagueness or ambiguity, presupposition failure, counterfactual reasoning, fictional discourse, and contingent statements about the future. In addition, the model uses lexical and semantic similarity measures in its analysis process. The dialetheic model is validated using several performance measures to determine its capability to find ambiguity in a competence ontology described using description logic. The results show that dialetheic logic is required to accurately interpret digital academic and professional profiles using computational reasoning mechanisms. The model applies in a Spanish context for computer science jobs, with the possibility to apply in other languages or domains, such as English, French, etc. Our model is a contribution for competencies management, which is useful for the automatic curriculum design, competencies validation in learning processes, among other uses.
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 | 0.008 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".