MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417494564 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-2025-5332

Interpretation and Representation in Geomodels: The POKIMON Ontology for Formalizing Geomodelling Knowledge

2025· article· W4417494564 on OpenAlexaff
Imadeddine Laouici, Boyan Brodaric, Christelle Loiselet, Gautier Laurent

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of CanadaNatural Resources Canada
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsOntologyInterpretation (philosophy)Transparency (behavior)Knowledge representation and reasoningRepresentation (politics)Tacit knowledgeAutomation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. With their growing volumes and uses, it is increasingly important to understand the interpretative and representational aspects of three-dimensional (3D) geosciences models. Such understanding will not only clarify key premises, inferences, and conclusions, but also enable more informed applications. Yet the epistemic foundations are often opaque. Critical information about assumptions, reasoning steps, and uncertainties typically remains tacit in the mind of the geomodeller. This lack of transparency hampers explainability, reproducibility, and broader utility. Current practices therefore 15 limit trust, knowledge transfer, and automation in geomodelling workflows. To address these limitations, we develop the POKIMON ontology, designed to make explicit the expert knowledge, interpretative choices, and conceptual structures underlying 3D geosciences models. POKIMON provides a formalized framework to represent how geological and geomdelling concepts are applied during model construction. Motivating use-cases, the ontological structure, and its application to the use[1]cases are presented to demonstrate utility and to advance automated knowledge-driven 3D geomodelling.

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)0.006
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0070.012
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.260 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeological Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207