MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160494060 · doi:10.1109/icccn.2007.4317873

QoS-based Discovery and Ranking of Web Services

2007· article· en· W2160494060 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.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicService-Oriented Architecture and Web Services
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeb serviceComputer scienceWS-I Basic ProfileRanking (information retrieval)World Wide WebWS-PolicySOAPQuality of serviceService discoveryDevices Profile for Web ServicesService (business)WS-AddressingWeb standardsInformation retrievalDatabaseWeb application securityWeb developmentWeb mappingComputer networkBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Discovering Web services using keyword-based search techniques offered by existing UDDI APIs (i.e. Inquiry API) may not yield results that are tailored to clients' needs. When discovering Web services, clients look for those that meet their requirements, primarily the overall functionality and Quality of Service (QoS). Standards such as UDDI, WSDL, and SOAP have the potential of providing QoS-aware discovery, however, there are technical challenges associated with existing standards such as the client's ability to control and manage discovery of Web services across accessible service registries. This paper proposes a solution to this problem and introduces the Web Service Relevancy Function (WsRF) used for measuring the relevancy ranking of a particular Web service based on client's preferences, and QoS metrics. We present experimental validation, results, and analysis of the presented ideas.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.387
Threshold uncertainty score0.381

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.209 · 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