MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388305419 · doi:10.1177/26339137231207634

Semantic computing with IEML

2023· article· en· W4388305419 on OpenAlexafffund
Pierre Lévy

Bibliographic record

VenueCollective Intelligence · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSemantic Web and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceMetalanguageSemantics (computer science)Syntagmatic analysisDimension (graph theory)Artificial intelligenceLinguisticsNatural language processingOperational semanticsProgramming languageMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents IEML, Information Economy MetaLanguage, a constructed language with the same expressive power as a natural language and with computable semantics. Distinguished from pragmatic and referential semantics, linguistic semantics have not yet been completely formalized. Only its syntagmatic dimension has been mathematized in the form of regular languages. Its paradigmatic dimension remained to be formalized. In order to complete the mathematizing of language, including its paradigmatic dimension, I have coded linguistic semantics with IEML. This article introduces its 3000-word dictionary, its formal grammar, and its integrated tools for building semantic graphs. For the future, IEML could become a vector for a fluid calculation and communication of meaning—semantic interoperability—capable of de-compartmentalizing the digital memory, and of advancing the progress of collective intelligence, artificial intelligence, and digital humanities. I conclude by indicating some research directions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0110.020
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCollective IntelligenceSame topicSemantic Web and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207