Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Principles of Engineering Service-Oriented Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This volume contains the proceedings of the Third Workshop on Principles of Engineering Service-Oriented Systems (PESOS 2011), held in Hawaii, USA on May 23rd and 24th 2011, co-located with ICSE 2011. PESOS is one of the satellite workshops of ICSE that provides a lively and exciting environment for discussion of trends in all aspects of computing that are related to Software Engineering. PESOS 2011 follows the steps of its two predecessors, held in Vancouver (2009) and Cape Town (2010), and aims at exploring the engineering aspects of service-oriented systems. These systems represent a class of software systems in which software is viewed and used as external, loosely-coupled services rather than being physically integrated and owned permanently. Service-oriented systems provide a flexible approach to software development, provisioning, and maintenance because services offer reusable functionality that can be combined to support business processes (or similar) that are dynamic in nature. This enables systems to adapt to changes in their environment as well as to the continuously evolving requirements that are commonplace today. However, service orientation poses challenges to more traditional approaches to software development, stemming from the lack of homogeneity of its basic components and from the requirement to accommodate changes and evolution right from the beginning. The goal of this workshop is to find possibilities of synergy between Software Engineering and Service-Oriented Computing that are beneficial to both fields. In organizing this workshop, we sought to bring together practitioners from both communities for a fruitful exchange of opinions, expertise and experiences. PESOS 2011 was fortunate to have invited talks from experts in the field and a panel on the future of research in service-oriented systems engineering. In addition, nine out of nineteen submitted papers were selected for presentation in four technical sessions. We want to thank the program committee and the additional reviewers for their dedication and the excellent work performed, without which the workshop would not have been possible. We also want to extend our gratitude to the organizers of ICSE 2011 for the facilities they gave us regarding the logistics of the workshop and the publication of the proceedings.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.041 | 0.015 |
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".