ArticleCEUR workshop proceedings2021
Challenges in Realism-Based Ontology Design: a Case Study on Creating an Ontology for Motivational Learning Theories.
Article in CEUR workshop proceedings, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: to identify on the basis of a use case major problem types novices in realism-based ontology design face when attempting to construct an ontology intended to explain differences and commonalities between competing scientific theories. Methodology: an ontology student was tasked (1) to extract manually from a paper about five distinct motivational learning theories the scientific terms used to explain the theories, (2) to map these terms where possible to type-terms from existing realism-based ontologies or create new ones otherwise, (3) to indicate for new type-terms their immediate subsumer, and (4) to document at every step issues that were encountered. Results: where term extraction and type-term assignment were handled satisfactorily, correct classification in function of the BFO was a major challenge. Root causes identified included ambiguous and underspecified term use in the theories, the ontological status of psychological constructs, lack of high quality ontologies for the behavioral sciences and insufficient 'deep' understanding of some BFO entities, in part because of insufficient documentation thereof suitable for learners. The issues the student encountered were often insufficiently described for the instructor to identify the problem without analyzing the source paper itself. Conclusion: whereas behavioral scientists need to do efforts to make their theories comparable, realism-based ontologies can help them therein only when ontology developers and educators put more effort in making them more accessible without violating the principles.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38859984PMC11164408What 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.