MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990928257 · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2012.06.043

Collaborate Social Network Services via Connectors

2012· article· en· W1990928257 on OpenAlexaff
Hamid Mcheick, Ahmad Karawash

Bibliographic record

VenueProcedia Computer Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPeer-to-Peer Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceWorld Wide WebPhoneSocial network (sociolinguistics)The InternetService (business)Internet privacySocial media

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social networking services can be broadly defined as internet-or mobile-based social spaces designed to facilitate communication, collaboration, and content sharing across networks of contacts. Services of social networks attract clients and try to cover all their needs. Every internet user has a group of social accounts according to his/her needs for example in Facebook, Skype, Twitter or others. But the problem is how client can manage a group of accounts? Iterative checking of every account is done because the services are independent. We will introduce in this article a new approach to achieve social network aggregation that deals with client as one class has many attribute (accounts). Also we will give an example as an application (called LU) to combine all these services with less use of computer or phone CPU. A new account will be implemented on the middle server between the social services server and the client. This account consists of ontology that combines all traits of social services (profile, friends, etc) and we will introduce a social SOA (SSOA) that will manage the new social service. This way will decrease the use of computer or phone CPU because clients will not have independent updates for his social events and only one account will be used. Also server will send update about all accounts in just one message.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.011
Open science0.0020.012
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.008

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProcedia Computer ScienceSame topicPeer-to-Peer Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207