MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2911795375

Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce

2012· article· en· W2911795375 sur OpenAlex
Boi Faltings, Kevin Leyton‐Brown, Panagiotis G. Ipeirotis

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

Revuenon disponible
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBusiness, Management and Accounting
ThématiqueDigital Platforms and Economics
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésComputer scienceNoveltyLibrary scienceOperations researchEngineering
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The papers in these proceedings were presented at the 13th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC'12), held June 4-8 in Valencia, Spain. Since 1999 the ACM Special Interest Group on Electronic Commerce (SIGecom) has sponsored the leading scientific conference on advances in theory, systems, and applications for electronic commerce. The natural focus of the conference is on computer science issues, but the conference is interdisciplinary in nature, including research in economics and research related to (but not limited to) the following three non-exclusive focus areas: TF: Theory and Foundations (Computer Science Theory; Economic Theory) AI: Artificial Intelligence (AI, Agents, Machine Learning, Data Mining) EA: Experimental and Applications (Empirical Research, Experience with E-Commerce Applications) In addition to the main technical program, EC'12 featured four workshops and five tutorials. EC'12 was also co-located with the Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS) 2012 Conference. The call for papers attracted 219 submissions from authors in academia and industry all around the world --- a new record for the conference, and indeed a 16% increase over the previous record. Each paper was reviewed by at least three program committee members (all of whom were active researchers with PhDs) and two senior program committee members (who were all prominent, senior researchers) on the basis of scientific novelty, technical quality, and importance to the field. This matching was performed algorithmically, and offered the guarantee that there existed no blocking pairs of a reviewer who preferred a different paper and a paper that preferred a different reviewer. After extensive discussion and deliberation among the program committee, senior program committee and program chairs, 73 papers were selected for presentation at the conference. 57 of these are published in these proceedings. For the remaining 16, at the authors' request, only abstracts are included along with pointers to full working papers. This option accommodates the practices of fields outside of computer science in which conference publishing can preclude journal publishing. We expect that many of the papers in these proceedings will appear in a more polished and complete form in scientific journals in the future. For the first time, authors were allowed to explicitly align their papers with one or two of the conference's three focus areas, with the guarantee that they would be reviewed by SPC members and PC members aligned with the same area(s). Overall, the conference accepted submissions in every one of the six tracks induced by the three focus areas, with the TF, AI and EA tags being chosen by 147, 62 and 47 submissions and 50, 22 and 13 accepted papers respectively. (Note: because some papers chose two tags, these numbers sum to more than 219 and 73 respectively.) These tracks existed solely to provide a fair review process across different communities. To emphasize commonalities among the problems studied at EC, and to facilitate interchange at the conference, sessions were organized by topic rather than by focus area, and no indication of a paper's focus area(s) was given at the conference or appears in these proceedings. Also for the first time at EC, a third of the papers were presented in plenary sessions, with the other two thirds in parallel sessions. (Thus, attendees spent half their time in plenary sessions.) Quality was a necessary but not sufficient condition for getting a plenary slot; it was also necessary for reviewers to judge that a paper had broad appeal. Some of the conference's technically strongest work addressed smaller cross-sections of the community, and so appeared in parallel sessions. We had one overlap day with AAMAS, our co-located sister conference. We had a variety of joint activities: two invited talks (Colin Camerer and Moshe Tennenholtz), common coffee breaks, and two shared poster sessions (featuring EC papers, AAMAS papers, and EC-relevant papers published in the broader community over the last year). The latter poster session was another innovation this year: we solicited posters for papers relevant to the EC community that had been published in other venues during the past year. We accepted 22 posters for this session, and also featured posters from all EC authors who wished to present their paper in this additional format.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,605
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,303

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,002
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,032
Tête enseignante GPT0,208
Écart entre enseignants0,176 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

En bref

Citations28
Publié2012
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même sujetDigital Platforms and EconomicsTravaux en français237 207