Dataflow Oriented Similarity Matching for Scientific Workflows
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Duplicate and redundant workflows can be avoided by encouraging workflow reuse. In this paper, we present how workflow similarity matching approach can be used to further enhance existing workflow modeling tools. Most existing workflow similarity algorithms cater for control-flow oriented types of workflow which are typically associated with business workflows. The increase presence of scientific workflows that are mainly dataflow oriented calls for workflow similarity matching that caters for these types of workflows instead. We demonstrate here how our work of applying a behavioral analysis technique (taking into consideration the causal footprint of the workflow) that has been used for finding similarity in business workflows perform when use for scientific workflows. The distinction of our technique is the use of data provenance within the scientific workflow model where positional information of the workflow activities are taken in consideration in order to find matching workflow models. Preliminary experiments have shown that our proposed solution provides a viable alternative for matching scientific workflows within multiple scenarios. Furthermore, our suggested approach performs better, particularly with the removal and extension types of modification to the original workflow.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it