MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142729424 · doi:10.1145/2523616.2523618

Tolerating business failures in hosted applications

2013· article· en· W2142729424 on OpenAlexafffund
Jean‐Sébastien Légaré, Dutch T. Meyer, Mark Spear, Alexandru Totolici, Sara Bainbridge, Kalan W. MacRow, Róbert Sumi, Quinlan Jung, Dennis Tjandra, David Williams-King, William Aiello, Andrew Warfield

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAccess Control and Trust
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceBusiness logicData lossAuditService providerComputer securityEvent (particle physics)Web applicationService (business)World Wide WebComputer networkDatabaseBusinessAccounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Users of hosted web-based applications implicitly trust that those applications, and the data that is within them, will remain active and available indefinitely into the future. When a service is terminated, for reasons such as the insolvency of the business that is providing it, users risk the immediate loss of software functionality and may face the permanent loss of their own data. This paper presents Micasa, a runtime for hosted applications that allows a significant subset of application logic and user data to remain available even in the event of the failure of a provider's business. By allowing users to audit application dependence on hosted components, and maintain externalized and private copies of their own data and the logic that allows access to it, we believe that Micasa is a first step in the direction of a more balanced degree of trust and investment between application providers and their users.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.842
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.278
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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAccess Control and TrustFrench-language works237,207