MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3175205084 · doi:10.4018/jdm.2021070105

A Review on the Integration of Deep Learning and Service-Oriented Architecture

2021· review· en· W3175205084 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

VenueJournal of Database Management · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicService-Oriented Architecture and Web Services
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceService-oriented architectureDeep learningArchitectureWeb serviceService (business)Artificial intelligenceData scienceWorld Wide WebKnowledge management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, machine learning has been used for data processing and analysis, providing insights to businesses and policymakers. Deep learning technology is promising to further revolutionize this processing leading to better and more accurate results. Current trends in information and communication technology are accelerating widespread use of web services in supporting a service-oriented architecture (SOA) consisting of services, their compositions, interactions, and management. Deep learning approaches can be applied to support the development of SOA-based solutions, leveraging the vast amount of data on web services currently available. On the other hand, SOA has mechanisms that can support the development of distributed, flexible, and reusable infrastructures for the use of deep learning. This paper presents a literature survey and discusses how SOA can be enabled by as well as facilitate the use of deep learning approaches in different types of environments for different levels of users.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score0.890

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.279 · 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