Bibliographic record
Abstract
Agents for online trading purpose can be seen as a tool that helps computer users to purchase products from distributed resources based on their interests and preferences. One of the major features that determine the success of trading agent is the ability to negotiate with other agents, because most trading tasks involve interaction among agents. This paper presents a peer-to-peer multi-agent system architecture for online trading. The main objective of this system is to address some of the shortcomings that are present in contemporary online trading systems that focused on providing solutions for specific trading issues, such as single attribute-based negotiation, the requirement of an electronic marketplace and variations and status changes within the network. The proposed system architecture is a multi-tier, multi-agent architecture. The system architecture consists of three types of agents that are classified based on their functionality: interface, resource and retrieval agents. The interface agents are the front-end of the system and able to interact with different users to fulfill their needs. At the middle-tier, the resource agents access and capture the contents and the changes of the local information database. The retrieval agents are the back-end of the system and able to travel and interact with other agents at remote host machines. A prototype of this system is implemented using the IBM Aglet SDK.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".