MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120646161 · doi:10.1109/nof.2015.7333293

An architecture for semantic service discovery and realizability in cloud computing

2015· article· en· W2120646161 on OpenAlexafffund
Masoud Barati, Richard St‐Denis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicService-Oriented Architecture and Web Services
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceCloud computingOntologyFormal verificationService-oriented architectureFormal methodsService (business)Service discoverySoftware engineeringRealizabilityWeb serviceWorld Wide WebProgramming languageOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the open issues in cloud computing is service discovery. Another issue, which has received less attention by practitioners in the cloud computing industry, is service composition based on formal methods, particularly those based on automata and formal languages. In recent years, semantic techniques and cloud ontology have been used to improve the process of finding similar services in the cloud environment. Cloudle, which is the most recent agent-based and semantic-supported search engine in cloud systems, exploits such techniques. Though many models and architectures have been proposed to develop Cloudle, none of them used formal methods for composing services. In this paper, behavior composition, as a formal approach and a sound and complete controller synthesis technique, is adapted to provide a formal approach for resource matching and service composition.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicService-Oriented Architecture and Web ServicesFrench-language works237,207