ArticleJournal on data semantics2015
Analysis and Prediction of User Editing Patterns in Ontology Development Projects.
Article in Journal on data semantics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evolution of biomedical ontologies and mappings: Overview of recent approaches.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The development of real-world ontologies is a complex undertaking, commonly involving a group of domain experts with different expertise that work together in a collaborative setting. These ontologies are usually large scale and have complex structures. To assist in the authoring process, ontology tools are key at making the editing process as streamlined as possible. Being able to predict confidently what the users are likely to do next as they edit an ontology will enable us to focus and structure the user interface accordingly and to facilitate more efficient interaction and information discovery. In this paper, we use data mining, specifically the association rule mining, to investigate whether we are able to predict the next editing operation that a user will make based on the change history. We simulated and evaluated continuous prediction across time using sliding window model. We used the association rule mining to generate patterns from the ontology change logs in the training window and tested these patterns on logs in the adjacent testing window. We also evaluated the impact of different training and testing window sizes on the prediction accuracies. At last, we evaluated our prediction accuracies across different user groups and different ontologies. Our results indicate that we can indeed predict the next editing operation a user is likely to make. We will use the discovered editing patterns to develop a recommendation module for our editing tools, and to design user interface components that better fit with the user editing behaviors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.