MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2200438693 · doi:10.17705/1cais.00831

New Developments in Practice II: Enterprise Application Integration

2002· article· en· W2200438693 on OpenAlexaff
James D. McKeen, Heather A. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications of the Association for Information Systems · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicService-Oriented Architecture and Web Services
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnterprise application integrationProcess managementEnterprise information integrationComputer scienceEnterprise integrationSystem integrationBusiness processProcess (computing)Knowledge managementEnterprise softwareBusinessEnterprise architectureEnterprise systems engineeringWork in processDatabaseMarketingArchitecture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The term enterprise application integration (EAI) refers to the plans, methods, and tools aimed at modernizing, consolidating, integrating and coordinating the computer applications within an enterprise. The need to integrate across applications is being driven by customer demand for access to information and the desire of the business for a single point of contact with their customer base. The challenges are significant because of the variety of technologies in need of integration and because integration cuts across lines of business. This paper distinguishes among four different (but related) targets of EAI: Data-level integration Application-level integration Process-level integration Inter-organizational-level integration The paper then discusses the technologies that assist with this integration (the "EAI toolkit") under the following categories: Asynchronous Event/Message Transport Transformation Engines Integration Brokers Business Process Management Frameworks The paper concludes by outlining six key strategies for managing EAI suggested by a group of senior IT managers from leading-edge firms.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.009
Scholarly communication0.0170.022
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.008

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations44
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications of the Association for Information SystemsSame topicService-Oriented Architecture and Web ServicesFrench-language works237,207