MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1495189154 · doi:10.5772/14792

Modelling Multi-Agent System using Different Methodologies

2011· book-chapter· en· W1495189154 on OpenAlexaff
Vera Maria B. Werneck, Rosa Maria E. Moreira da Costa, L de Souza-Santos Marcio

Bibliographic record

VenueInTech eBooks · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMulti-Agent Systems and Negotiation
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersU.S. Department of State
KeywordsComputer scienceAutonomyKnowledge managementProactivityMulti-agent systemAgent-oriented software engineeringSoftware developmentSoftware engineeringProcess (computing)Software development processEngineering managementSoftwareProcess managementEngineeringSystems engineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increasing use of multi-agent systems brings challenges that have not been studied yet, such as: how we should adapt requirements elicitation to cope with agent properties like autonomy, sociability and proactiveness. The agent-oriented modelling is proposed as a suitable software engineering approach for complex organizational application domains that deal with the need for new applications. These requirements are not broadly considered by current paradigms. Autonomy and sociability aspects such as the dependency of an agent on another, and how critical this condition should be, have to be analysed from the early stages of the software development process

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.886
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.325
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.003 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInTech eBooksSame topicMulti-Agent Systems and NegotiationFrench-language works237,207