MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026632448 · doi:10.1145/505894.505911

Summary of the second ICSE workshop on web engineering

2001· article· en· W2026632448 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWeb Applications and Data Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEngineeringLibrary scienceWorld Wide WebWeb siteWeb engineeringComputer scienceWeb developmentWeb pageThe InternetWeb application security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The series of workshops on Web Engineering started in 1998 with the World Wide Web Conference WWW7 in Brisbane, Australia, and has continued with WWW8 (Toronto, 1999) and WWW9 (Amsterdam, 2000). The first such workshop with the International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) took place in 1999 in Los Angeles. The second workshop was held on 4-5 June 2000 in Limerick, Ireland and attracted about 30 participants.The main purpose behind these workshops is to share and pool the collective experience of people, both academics and practitioners, who are actively working on Web-based systems.This workshop consisted of two keynote addresses, 11 contributed papers and two sessions of open discussions. The call for papers elicited 18 submissions of which 11 were accepted after peer reviews. The papers presented at the workshop appear in the book Web Engineering (San Murugesan and Yogesh Deshpande (eds.), LNCS, Springer-Verlag, 2000).

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)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.595
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.203 · 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