MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390284217 · doi:10.3389/978-2-8325-4182-1

Knowledge Graph Technologies: the Next Frontier of the Food, Agriculture, and Water Domains

2023· book· en· W4390284217 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers research topics · 2023
Typebook
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGenome CanadaScience Foundation IrelandU.S. Department of AgricultureAgence Nationale de la RechercheNational Science Foundation
KeywordsFrontierAgricultureKnowledge graphGraphComputer scienceBusinessKnowledge managementData scienceGeographyTheoretical computer scienceInformation retrieval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Knowledge Graph (KG) is based on a graph model to encode the description of entities. As defined by Hogan and his collaborators in 2022, a knowledge graph is “a graph of data intended to accumulate and convey knowledge of the real world, whose nodes represent entities of interest and whose edges represent relations between these entities.” For Knowledge Graph using Semantic Web technologies, entities (people, events, concepts, etc.) are identified by a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI). This URI is the source of a graph description, the edge specifies the nature of the link (person name or brotherhood relationship) and the destination of the edge could be a simple literal (the person name) or a URI that identifies another entity (the URI of the brother). The main advantage of these technologies is to link entities that are described differently in several knowledge graphs provided by various organizations. Thus, computer scientists may analyze all those graph descriptions to derive new information (detect incoherencies, complete data, etc.). During the last decade, considerable progress has been made in the construction and enrichment of KGs, including ontology matching, data integration, fact prediction, and validation. This happened largely thanks to the use of techniques developed in the fields of knowledge representation, reasoning, and machine learning. With these advances, more and more applications are now able to produce and process KGs in domains such as life sciences, Galleries/Libraries/Archives/Museums (GLAMs), and health care. The subjects of interest within the Food, Agriculture, and Water domains are often complex phenomena where entities evolve through time and space. Those phenomena may be transformed by different processes and influenced by both human and natural systems. The scientific disciplines that study these phenomena are diverse and do not necessarily share the same vocabularies, the same techniques of observation, the same analyses, and so on. Indeed, each discipline often has its own point of view to describe the complexity of the studied phenomena. KG technologies provide one possible approach to express this diversity of representations and align or combine them. This Research Topic has received 13 abstracts, from which 8 articles were accepted. Three articles present a method, 4 articles are original research, and 1 is a conceptual analysis. Overall they cover three broad Research Topics often discussed in the KG research communities: ontologies design, data architectures, reasoning.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.303
Threshold uncertainty score0.691

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.228 · 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