Semi-Automatic Building and Learning of a Multilingual Ontology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most online platforms, applications, and Websites use a massive amount of heterogeneous evolving data. These data must be structured and normalized before integration to improve the search and increase the relevance of results. An ontology can address this critical task by efficiently managing data and providing structured formats through techniques such as the Web Ontology Language (OWL). However, building an ontology can be costly, primarily if conducted manually. In this context, we propose a new methodology for automatically building and learning a multilingual ontology using Arabic as the base language via a corpus collected from Wikipedia. Our proposed methodology relies on Finite-state transducers (FSTs). FSTs are regrouped into a cascade to reduce errors and minimize ambiguity. The produced ontology is extended to English and French and independent language images via a translator we developed using APIs. The rationale for starting with the Arabic corpus to extract terms is that entity linking is more convenient from Arabic to other languages. In addition, many Wikipedia articles in English and French (for instance) do not have associated Arabic articles, but the opposite is true. In addition, dealing with Arabic terms permits us to enrich the Arabic module of the free linguistic platform we use in dictionaries and graphs. To assess the efficiency of our proposed methodology, we conducted performance metrics. The reported results are encouraging and promising.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".