POYRAZ: CONTEXT‐AWARE SERVICE SELECTION UNDER DECEPTION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing number of service providers on the Web makes it challenging to select a provider for a specific service demand. Each service consumer has different expectations for a given service in different contexts, so the selection process should be consumer‐oriented and context‐dependent. Current approaches for service selection typically have consumers receive ratings of providers from other consumers, where the ratings reflect the consumers' overall subjective opinions. This may be misleading if consumers have different contexts and satisfaction criteria. In this paper, we propose that consumers objectively record their experiences, using an ontology to capture subtle details. This can then be interpreted by consumers according to their own criteria and contexts. We then integrate a method for addressing consumers who lie about their experiences, filtering them out during service selection. We demonstrate the value of our approach through experiments comparing our model with three recent rating‐based service selection models. Our experiments show that using the proposed approach, service consumers can select the service providers for their needs more accurately even if the consumers have different criteria, they change the contexts of their service demands over time, or a significant portion of them are liars.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".