MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214899899 · doi:10.1109/icws.2004.1314742

Comparison of UDDI registry replication strategies

2004· article· en· W4214899899 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

VenueProceedings. IEEE International Conference on Web Services, 2004. · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed systems and fault tolerance
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReplication (statistics)Computer scienceMiddleware (distributed applications)ThroughputWeb serviceWS-I Basic ProfileDistributed computingComputer networkWorld Wide WebOperating systemWirelessBiologyWeb application security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UDDI registries are intended to become the world-wide lookup mechanism for Web-services. As such, the registry has to provide high throughput, low response times, high availability, and access to accurate data. Replication is often used to satisfy such requirements. Various replication strategies exist, favoring different subsets of the above performance metrics. In this paper we have a closer look at two very different replication strategies. One strategy follows the UDDI specification, the second uses a middleware based replication tool. In this paper, we provide a comparison of these two approaches focusing on performance and ease of integration with an existing UDDI implementation.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.855
Threshold uncertainty score0.910

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 communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.291 · 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