Curating the Specificity of Metadata while World Models Evolve: Paper - iPRES 2012 - Digital Curation Institute, iSchool, Toronto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main digital preservation strategies are based on metadata and in many cases Semantic Web languages, like RDF/S, are used for expressing them.However RDF/S schemas or ontologies are not static, but evolve.This evolution usually happens independently of the "metadata" (ontological instance descriptions) which are stored in the various Metadata Repositories (MRs) or Knowledge Bases (KBs).Nevertheless, it is a common practice for a MR/KB to periodically update its ontologies to their latest versions by "migrating" the available instance descriptions to the latest ontology versions.Such migrations incur gaps regarding the specificity of the migrated metadata, i.e. inability to distinguish those descriptions that should be reexamined (for possible specialization as consequence of the migration) from those for which no reexamination is justified.Consequently, there is a need for principles, techniques, and tools for managing the uncertainty incurred by such migrations, specifically techniques for (a) identifying automatically the descriptions that are candidate for specialization, (b) computing, ranking and recommending possible specializations, and (c) flexible interactive techniques for updating the available descriptions (and their candidate specializations), after the user (curator of the repository) accepts/rejects such recommendations.This problem is especially important for curated knowledge bases which have increased quality requirements (as in e-Science).In this paper we elaborate on this problem, we propose a general approach, and discuss examples and a prototype application that we have developed assuming the RFD/S framework.
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 | 0.014 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".