MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168501136 · doi:10.1109/waina.2009.56

Social Network-Based Trust for Agent-Based Services

2009· article· en· W2168501136 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
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAccess Control and Trust
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsService providerComputer scienceReputationService (business)Service level objectiveCustomer Service AssuranceGame theoryDifferentiated serviceService designBusinessMarketingMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In service-oriented environments, reputation-based service selection is gaining increasing prominence. We propose in this paper a social network-based approach to model and analyze trust when a given service, called customer service or customer, should select another service, called provider service or provider, in a composition scenario. Trust is modeled as a game between customer and provider services and represented in the network through two types of nodes and labelled edges linking customer nodes to each other and customer nodes to provider nodes. To analyze the different situations using a game-theoretic and mechanism design representation, each service is associated to a rational agent where decisions are based on the gaining utilities. This allows us to capture, assess and analyze the possible strategies in such a game. An overall trust assessment is provided and some interesting properties are discussed. Some simulation results are also presented.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.864
Threshold uncertainty score0.810

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAccess Control and TrustFrench-language works237,207