MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975566372 · doi:10.1145/1119655.1119670

Doxpects

2006· article· en· W1975566372 on OpenAlexaff
Eric Wohlstadter, Kris De Volder

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicService-Oriented Architecture and Web Services
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceXMLMiddleware (distributed applications)Web serviceSoftware engineeringInteroperabilityService-oriented architectureProgramming languageWorld Wide WebDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the web services environment software development can involve writing both object-oriented programs and XML transformations. This can be seen in the popular Web Services architecture. In this architecture, crosscutting concerns are often manifest as transformations on XML messages; encrypting messages, adapting between schemas types or adding extra-functional elements such as transaction contexts can be seen as prime examples. Some existing middleware platforms provide support for Handlers where crosscutting message transformation concerns can be addressed. Although handlers localize some concerns, they do not support the sound software-engineering principle of "programming to an interface". This prevents a clean mapping from design to implementation and inhibits useful static checking which could take advantage of a well specified interface. To address this and similar design challenges, we have developed Doxpects, which solve many problems with the existing handler approach to implementing these new crosscutting concerns. We describe an AOP abstraction called the content-based pointcut which integrates support for XML transformation to enable implementation of crosscutting concerns with good modularity properties. We present examples based on XML encryption and service interoperability implemented on top of the Apache Axis Web Services middleware.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.171
Teacher spread0.169 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations11
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicService-Oriented Architecture and Web ServicesFrench-language works237,207