MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3011380968 · doi:10.1109/tsc.2020.2980793

A Survey on Web Service QoS Prediction Methods

2020· article· en· W3011380968 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

VenueIEEE Transactions on Services Computing · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRecommender Systems and Techniques
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceWeb serviceCollaborative filteringQuality of serviceThe InternetField (mathematics)Service (business)World Wide WebData miningRecommender systemComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nowadays, there are many Web services with similar functionality on the Internet. Users consider Quality of Service (QoS) of the services to select the best service from among them. The prediction of QoS values of the Web services and recommendations of the best service based on these values to the users is one of the major challenges in the web service area. Major studies in this field use collaboration filtering based methods for prediction. The paper introduced prediction methods and divided them into three main categories: memory-based methods, model-based methods, and Collaborative Filtering (CF) methods combined with other methods. In each category, some of the most famous studies were introduced, and then the problems and benefits of each category were reviewed. Finally, we have a discussion about these methods and propose suggestions for future works.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.902
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.255 · 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