Automated Extraction of Function Knowledge From Text
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
This paper presents a method to automatically extract function knowledge from natural language text. The extraction method uses syntactic rules to acquire subject-verb-object (SVO) triplets from parsed text. Then, the functional basis taxonomy, WordNet, and word2vec are utilized to classify the triplets as artifact-function-energy flow knowledge. For evaluation, the function definitions associated with 30 most frequent artifacts compiled in a human-constructed knowledge base, Oregon State University's design repository (DR), were compared to the definitions identified by extraction the method from 4953 Wikipedia pages classified under the category “Machines.” The method found function definitions for 66% of the test artifacts. For those artifacts found, 50% of the function definitions identified were compiled in the DR. In addition, 75% of the most frequent function definitions found by the method were also defined in the DR. The results demonstrate the potential of the current work in enabling automated construction of function knowledge repositories.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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