Second International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 3rd Workshop on Ontologies in Agent Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a growing interest in the use of ontologies in agent systems as a means to facilitate interoperability among diverse software components, in particular, where interoperability is achieved through the explicit modelling of the intended meaning of the concepts used in the interaction between diverse information sources, software components and/or service-providing software. The problems arising from the creation, maintenance, use and sharing of such semantic descriptions are perceived as critical to future commercial and non-commercial information networks, and are being highlighted by a number of recent large-scale initiatives to create open environments that support the interaction of many diverse systems (e.g. Agentcities, Grid computing, the Semantic Web and Web Services). A common thread across these initiatives is the need to support the synergy between ontology and agent technology, and increasingly, the multi-agent systems and ontology research communities are seeking to work together to solve common problems. This workshop is the third in a series of workshops on Ontologies and Agent Systems (the previous workshops were held at the International Conference on Autonomous Agents 2001 in Montreal, Canada and the International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 2002 in Bologna, Italy). It aims to provide a forum to foster discussion on the issues involved in using ontologies to support interactions between software agents. Emphasis will be on the discussion of ontologies with respect to the practical impact they have on agent architecture and application design. A new initiative this year was the introduction of a workshop challenge problem to discuss the design and (preferably) an implementation of a multi-agent system in the domain of travel booking information and services, based on a domain description previously developed for an ontology tool assessment exercise organised by the EU OntoWeb project’s SIG on enterprise-standard ontology environments. The details of the challenge problem can be found on the OAS’03 workshop Web page at
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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.052 | 0.022 |
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".