Une approche orientée agent pour la conception du travail coopératif.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le developpement croissant de l'internet entraine un besoin important d'outils intelligents d'aide au travail cooperatif, encore appeles systemes de workflow. De ce fait, les systemes de workflow actuels doivent evoluer vers des systemes de workflow parallele distribues (DPWS). Dans cet article, nous proposons un nouveau modele de workflow dans lequel les activites sont parallelisees. Pour ce faire, nous definissons les notions de tâches, de validite d'execution de tâches, de dependance et de coherence entre tâches. Dans une deuxieme partie, nous presentons un modele multi-agent permettant de gerer les interactions entre agents humains, appeles acteurs, et agents artificiels puis nous detaillons l'architecture d'agent que nous proposons pour repondre aux besoins du systeme de workflow parallele. Cette architecture formee d'agents primitifs est originale dans le contexte des systemes de workflow. Finalement, nous illustrons notre modele sur une application reelle d'aide a la redaction de documents techniques.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".