MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146013510 · doi:10.1145/1367497.1367605

Investigating web services on the world wide web

2008· article· en· W2146013510 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicService-Oriented Architecture and Web Services
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWorld Wide WebWeb serviceComputer scienceWeb crawlerWeb standardsData WebWS-PolicyWeb modelingWeb developmentWeb Coverage ServiceWeb analyticsWeb pageService (business)Web application securityWeb mappingBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Searching for Web service access points is no longer attached to service registries as Web search engines have become a new major source for discovering Web services. In this work, we conduct a thorough analytical investigation on the plurality of Web service interfaces that exist on the Web today. Using our Web Service Crawler Engine (WSCE), we collect metadata service information on retrieved interfaces through accessible UBRs, service portals and search engines. We use this data to determine Web service statistics and distribution based on object sizes, types of technologies employed, and the number of functioning services. This statistical data can be used to help determine the current status of Web services. We determine an intriguing result that 63% of the available Web services on the Web are considered to be active. We further use our findings to provide insights on improving the service retrieval process.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.805
Threshold uncertainty score0.544

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.204 · 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