MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128609416 · doi:10.1109/services-i.2009.95

Quality of Security Service for Web Services within SOA

2009· article· en· W2128609416 on OpenAlexaff
Hany F. El Yamany, Miriam A. M. Capretz, David S. Allison

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicService-Oriented Architecture and Web Services
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceService providerService-oriented architectureWeb serviceService designMetadataService (business)Security serviceService delivery frameworkService level objectiveWeb application securityWorld Wide WebComputer securityDifferentiated serviceWS-PolicyBusinessWeb developmentInformation security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) is a paradigm for creating and encapsulating business processes in the form of loose-coupling, autonomous and abstracted services. Managing the non-functional requirements of SOA such as security, is an over arching problem due to the wide variety of ways the service consumer can access the services offered by the service provider and the equally varied restrictions the service provider can set for gaining access by the service consumer. In this work, we propose a metadata for quality of security service for SOA. The proposed metadata provides different levels to describe the available variations of the authentication, authorization and privacy features that are related to SOA security. A Web Service for Quality of Security Service (QoSS) is then constructed to encapsulate the suggested metadata in order to assist the service consumer and provider to achieve a QoSS agreement meeting both of their requirements. The QoSS agreement will perform as an enforced policy for managing the interactions between the service provider and consumer. The service of QoSS is located inside a complete framework for securing SOA.

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 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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.348
Threshold uncertainty score0.803

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations21
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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