Mobile intelligent agent systems: WAVE vs. JAVA
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
We examine and contrast two interesting systems which are at the two ends of the scale in their ability to support program mobility: JAVA and WAVE. JAVA offers a useful combination of some of the most attractive features in conventional programming languages and environments. It supports distributed computing and TCP/IP protocols (e.g. HTTP), and allows transparent access to objects across the net via URLs. New interactive code modules can be dynamically loaded and linked on demand from a variety of distributed sources, thus supporting to some extent the implementation of mobile intelligent agents. WAVE, on the other hand, offers a completely new programming paradigm, which directly supports dynamic creation and processing of arbitrary knowledge networks. In WAVE, programs ("waves") can be injected from arbitrary points in the distributed system, roam in the network in a virus-like mode, while replicating into parallel instances, and coordinating with each other, without any centralized control. Different waves can cooperate in a distributed space, thereby forming dynamic societies which may collectively perform complex knowledge processing.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
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