MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1556393817 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v24i1.7516

On the Reputation of Agent-Based Web Services

2010· article· en· W1556393817 on OpenAlexafffund
Babak Khosravifar, Jamal Bentahar, Ahmad Moazin, Philippe Thiran

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAccess Control and Trust
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsReputationReputation managementComputer scienceWeb serviceGame theoryControl (management)Mechanism (biology)World Wide WebWS-PolicyReputation systemInternet privacyBusinessWeb developmentWeb application securityMicroeconomicsArtificial intelligenceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Maintaining a sound reputation mechanism requires a robust control and investigation. In this paper, we propose a game-theoretic analysis of a reputation mechanism that objectively maintains accurate reputation evaluation of selfish agent-based web services. In this framework, web services are ranked using their reputation as a result of provided feedback reflecting consumers' satisfaction about the offered services. However, selfish web services may alter their public reputation level by managing to get fake feedback. In this paper, game-theoretic analysis investigates the payoffs of different situations and elaborates on the facts that discourage web services to act maliciously.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations16
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicAccess Control and TrustFrench-language works237,207