MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2338278990

Agents and P2P Combined For E-commerce

2003· article· en· W2338278990 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

VenuereroDoc Digital Library · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPeer-to-Peer Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessComputer scienceInternet privacy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electronic commerce technology is more and more present and people are getting connected together. Companies and users want to automate their task and discover new business opportunities. Many standards and initiatives have been already proposed. Most of them focus on business-to- business protocol definition. Rosettanet, cxml, xcbl and bizTalk are only a few examples. Users and companies then have a set of protocols they need to understand and master for implementing solutions. With the increasing number of protocols, companies need a solution permitting them to easily integrate different protocols. Unfortunately, the commercial solutions provided today do not provide sufficient support for integration. Software agents have already been proposed as a key technology for connecting people and adding new features in electronic trading. However, most of the agent-based solutions already proposed have not really changed the user's experience, neither have they brought a major shift from traditional activities in classic markets. This is mainly due to their inflexibility. In fact, these solutions predefine rules and policies in ways that users feel uncomfortable and are limited in their actions. Agent-based systems seem to appear as a key technology that gives users more autonomy and that is yet flexible enough to integrate new business scenarios. In this paper we propose an agent-based solution that could be used to wrap in existing systems and applications. We show how it could be easy to support new protocols without being forced to rewrite solutions from scratch. The work proposed combines both, advantages from software agent technology, and from P2P networking technology. The solution has four layers where each one encapsulates a specific set of functionalities: communication, business, cooperation and coordination. Users can adapt or modify the internal structure of one layer without necessarily affecting the others.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.551
Threshold uncertainty score0.741

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 communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.223
Teacher spread0.206 · 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