MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2281594611 · doi:10.1109/dexa.2002.1045972

Addressing dynamism in e-negotiations by workflow management systems

2004· article· en· W2281594611 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
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBusiness Process Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDynamismWorkflowNegotiationComputer scienceTask (project management)Software engineeringArchitectureWorkflow management systemKnowledge managementDistributed computingObject (grammar)Process managementDatabaseSystems engineeringArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Workflows (Wfs) are a major enabling technology for e-commerce. In our research, a Combined Negotiation (CN) is modeled and enacted using Wf technology. The modeling task captures the sequencing of the individual negotiations as well as the dependencies between them, and the enacting task runs the model. A CN support system (CONSENSUS) is used by the user to perform both tasks. Supporting dynamic modifications to the model during runtime should increase the benefits of our approach. We highlight the need for such support by identifying the dynamic aspects that can occur while negotiating the different items of a package (i.e., the CN object). To address these aspects, we experimented using ADEPT, a Wf management system supporting dynamism. This leads us to discuss the Wf reference model of the Wf management coalition, and suggest a "dynamic" extension to the current functional areas and architecture.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.818
Threshold uncertainty score0.667

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations41
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBusiness Process Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207