Infrastructure management transaction formalism protocol specification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to develop a step-by-step procedure, referred to as transaction formalism protocol (TFP) that the transaction development personnel will use to formalise transactions (communications) in the domain of infrastructure management. The protocol is developed at two levels of abstraction: TFP specification and TFP tool. This paper presents the TFP specification in detail and introduces the TFP tool briefly. The specific focus of this paper is on the development process of the protocol specification. Design/methodology/approach – A four-step approach is used to develop the TFP; including, identify and select existing standards, benchmark standards, link and build on these standards, and develop TFP. To develop the protocol, the function modelling standard, integration definition function modelling (IDEF0) is used. The IDEF0 treats each step of the protocol as a function. Findings – The TFP specification and TFP tool are developed using the proposed methodology. The TFP specification specifies inputs, controls, mechanisms, tools/techniques, and outputs required in each step, whereas the TFP tool defines forms for each step of the protocol that the transaction development personnel will use to define transactions in the domain of infrastructure management. Practical implications – The development of the TFP would enable the transaction development personnel (including transaction analysts, transaction designers, software developers, process modellers, and industry experts) to formalise transactions effectively and efficiently for the development of ICT-based collaboration systems. Originality/value – The proposed protocol incorporates shortcomings of existing standards. In contrast to other design standards that focus on either design or design cum implementation of the work processes and communications, the proposed TFP includes transaction monitoring and improvements in addition to the design and implementation of communications. Unlike other standards, the TFP is a detailed step-by-step procedure to ease its usability and understandability.
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 | 0.016 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.006 |
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".