MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009286910 · doi:10.1109/scc.2010.75

Analyzing Communities vs. Single Agent-Based Web Services: Trust Perspectives

2010· article· en· W2009286910 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAccess Control and Trust
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReputationWeb serviceComputer scienceIncentiveWorld Wide WebService (business)Perspective (graphical)Multi-agent systemReputation systemKnowledge managementBusinessMarketingMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gathering functionally similar agent-based Web services into communities has been proposed and promoted on many occasions. In this paper, we compare the performance of these communities with self-managed, single agent-based Web services from trust perspective. To this end, we deploy a reputation model that ranks communities and Web services with respect to different reputation parameters. By relating the parameters, we extend our discussion to analyze the beneficial cases and incentives for a single Web service to join a community even if this joining could negatively impact other parameters. Besides theoretical discussions of this analysis, we discuss the system implementation along with simulations that depict diverse parameters and system performance.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.606
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAccess Control and TrustFrench-language works237,207