Addendum to: Efficient Axiomatization of OWL 2 EL Ontologies from Data by means of Formal Concept Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is an addendum to the following conference article and its accompanying technical report: Francesco Kriegel (2024). Efficient Axiomatization of OWL 2 EL Ontologies from Data by means of Formal Concept Analysis. In: Proceedings of the 38th Annual AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2024, Vancouver, Canada, February 20–27, 2024. pp. 10597–10606. DOI: 10.1609/aaai.v38i9.28930 Francesco Kriegel (2023). Efficient Axiomatization of OWL 2 EL Ontologies from Data by means of Formal Concept Analysis (Extended Version). LTCS-Report 23-01. Dresden, Germany: Chair of Automata Theory, Institute of Theoretical Computer Science, Technische Universität Dresden. DOI: 10.25368/2023.214
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.286 | 0.160 |
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".