MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6928996209 · doi:10.4230/dagrep.12.9.60

Knowledge Graphs and their Role in the Knowledge Engineering of the 21st Century (Dagstuhl Seminar 22372)

2023· report· en· W6928996209 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueUvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) · 2023
Typereport
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer therapeutics and mechanisms
Canadian institutionsInnovation Cluster (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKnowledge engineeringKnowledge graphGenerative grammarKnowledge extractionSociology of scientific knowledgeSnapshot (computer storage)Natural languageKnowledge representation and reasoningKnowledge integrationDomain knowledge

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report documents the programme and outcomes of Dagstuhl Seminar 22372 "Knowledge Graphs and their Role in the Knowledge Engineering of the 21st Century" held in September 2022. The seminar aimed to gain a better understanding of the way knowledge graphs are created, maintained, and used today, and identify research challenges throughout the knowledge engineering life cycle, including tasks such as modelling, representation, reasoning, and evolution. The participants identified directions of research to answer these challenges, which will form the basis for new methodologies, methods, and tools, applicable to varied AI systems in which knowledge graphs are used, for instance, in natural language processing, or in information retrieval. The seminar brought together a snapshot of the knowledge engineering and adjacent communities, including leading experts, academics, practitioners, and rising stars in those fields. It fulfilled its aims - the participants took inventory of existing and emerging solutions, discussed open problems and practical challenges, and identified ample opportunities for novel research, technology transfer, and inter-disciplinary collaborations. Among the topics of discussion were: designing engineering methodologies for knowledge graphs, integrating large language models and structured data into knowledge engineering pipelines, neural methods for knowledge engineering, responsible use of AI in knowledge graph construction, other forms of knowledge representations, and generating user and developer buy-in. Besides a range of joint publications, hackathons, and project proposals, the participants suggested joint activities with other scientific communities, in particular those working on large language models, generative AI, FAccT (fairness, accountability, transparency), and human-AI interaction. The discussions were captured in visual summaries thanks to Catherine Allan - you can find more about her work at https://www.catherineallan.co.uk/. The summaries are arrayed throughout this report. Lastly, knowledge about the seminar is captured in Wikidata at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q113961931

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 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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score0.824

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam)Same topicCancer therapeutics and mechanismsFrench-language works237,207