Reputation-Enhanced QoS-based Web Services Discovery
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
With an increasing number of Web services providing similar functionalities, quality of service (QoS) is becoming an important criterion for selection of the best available service. Currently the problem is twofold. The Universal Description, Discovery and Integration (UDDI) registries do not have the ability to publish the QoS information, and the authenticity of the advertised QoS information available elsewhere may be questionable. We propose a model of reputation-enhanced QoS- based Web services discovery that combines an augmented UDDI registry to publish the QoS information and a reputation manager to assign reputation scores to the services based on customer feedback of their performance. A discovery agent facilitates QoS-based service discovery using the reputation scores in a service matching, ranking and selection algorithm. The novelty of our model lies in its simplicity and in its coordination of the above mentioned components. We present experiments to evaluate the effectiveness of our approach using a prototype implementation of the model.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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