Multi-Layer Web Services Discovery Using Word Embedding and Clustering Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose a multi-layer data mining architecture for web services discovery using word embedding and clustering techniques to improve the web service discovery process. The proposed architecture consists of five layers: web services description and data preprocessing; word embedding and representation; syntactic similarity; semantic similarity; and clustering. In the first layer, we identify the steps to parse and preprocess the web services documents. In the second layer, Bag of Words with Term Frequency–Inverse Document Frequency and three word-embedding models are employed for web services representation. In the third layer, four distance measures, namely, Cosine, Euclidean, Minkowski, and Word Mover, are considered to find the similarities between Web services documents. In layer four, WordNet and Normalized Google Distance are employed to represent and find the similarity between web services documents. Finally, in the fifth layer, three clustering algorithms, namely, affinity propagation, K-means, and hierarchical agglomerative clustering, are investigated for clustering of web services based on observed similarities in documents. We demonstrate how each component of the five layers is employed in web services clustering using randomly selected web services documents. We conduct experimental analysis to cluster web services using a collected dataset consisting of web services documents and evaluate their clustering performances. Using a ground truth for evaluation purposes, we observe that clusters built based on the word embedding models performed better than those built using the Bag of Words with Term Frequency–Inverse Document Frequency model. Among the three word embedding models, the pre-trained Word2Vec’s skip-gram model reported higher performance in clustering web services. Among the three semantic similarity measures, path-based WordNet similarity reported higher clustering performance. By considering the different word representations models and syntactic and semantic similarity measures, we found that the affinity propagation clustering technique performed better in discovering similarities among Web services.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".