MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994164519 · doi:10.1145/570132.570135

Scalability and information agents

2001· article· en· W1994164519 on OpenAlexaff
Ralph Deters

Bibliographic record

VenueACM SIGAPP Applied Computing Review · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMulti-Agent Systems and Negotiation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceScalabilityVariety (cybernetics)Distributed computingInformation systemCommon Object Request Broker ArchitectureData scienceDatabaseArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Having fast and dependable access to the most relevant information available is of the utmost importance in a competitive information-oriented society. Ensuring transparent and dependable access to a large number of heterogeneous, ill-structured and often distributed data and information sources is a complex problem with many different facets. Over time a large variety of very different approaches have been developed. Among the many competing approaches, information agents seem to be particularly well suited to the challenges of the information cyberspace due to their highly adaptive and distributed problem solving. Only information agents seem capable to offer the much needed user centric access to the myriads of data and information sources accessible via the web. But just like other agents, they require significant computational resources making it difficult to build scalable systems.This paper has two aims. First it is an attempt to draw attention to the scalability challenges in developing systems consisting of large numbers of information agents. Second, it presents a CORBA based framework called DICE for building information agents and reports about its use in developing real world systems based on information agents.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0080.017
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 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

Citations8
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM SIGAPP Applied Computing ReviewSame topicMulti-Agent Systems and NegotiationFrench-language works237,207