P.: OLA in the OAEI 2005 alignment contest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
euzenat-at-inrialpes.fr Among the variety of alignment approaches (e.g., using machine learning, subsumption computation, formal concept analysis, etc.) similarity-based ones rely on a quantitative assessment of pair-wise likeness between entities. Our own alignment tool, OLA, features a similarity model rooted in principles such as: completeness on the ontology language features, weighting of different feature contributions and mutual influence between related ontology entities. The resulting similarities are recursively defined hence their values are calculated by a step-wise, fixed-point-bound approximation process. For the OAEI 2005 contest, OLA was provided with an additional mechanism for weight determination that increases the autonomy of the system. 1. PRESENTATION OF THE SYSTEM OLA (for OWL-Lite Alignment) is an open-source tool jointly developed by teams at University of Montréal and INRIA Rhône Alpes. It features similarity-based alignment and a set of auxiliary services supporting the manipulation of alignment results [5, 6]. 1.1 General purpose statement The primary goal behind the OLA tool design is to perform alignment of ontologies expressed in OWL, with a short-term emphasis on OWL-Lite and long-term one on OWL-DL. However, its GUI component, VisOn 1 allows for many other services involving alignments (in the sense of [4]) to be accessed. 1.1.1 Functional specifications From a mere algorithm for automated alignment construction, OLA has grown for the last year to an en-
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.106 | 0.054 |
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".