MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105662271 · doi:10.1109/fuzzy.2009.5277061

Fuzzy approach for the evaluation of trust and reputation of services

2009· article· en· W2105662271 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 institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReputationComputer scienceFuzzy logicService providerRobustness (evolution)DeceptionFuzzy setService (business)Trust management (information system)Computational trustKnowledge managementComputer securityBusinessArtificial intelligenceMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A service-oriented environment has special characteristics that distinguishes it from other computing environments: (i) the environment is dynamic; (ii) the number of service providers is unbounded; (iii) services are owned by various stakeholders with different aims and objectives; (iv) there is no central authority that can control all the service providers and consumers; (v) service providers and consumers are self-interested. Given these special characteristics, the evaluation of trust and reputation is very important in such an open, dynamic and distributed environment. Therefore, a fuzzy-based trust and reputation approach using three trust sources was developed. Simulating the real world in which deception happens, an evaluation is performed showing the usefulness and robustness of the fuzzy approach by a comparison with a weighted approach.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.716
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Citations26
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAccess Control and TrustFrench-language works237,207