MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Behavioral Attestation for Web Services Based Business Processes

2012· book-chapter· en· W4239508693 on OpenAlexaff
Masoom Alam, Mohammad Nauman, Xinwen Zhang, Tamleek Ali, Patrick C. K. Hung, Quratulain Alam

Bibliographic record

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2012
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAccess Control and Trust
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusiness Process Execution LanguageBusiness processComputer scienceService-oriented architectureWeb serviceVendorProcess managementTrustworthinessPledgeProcess (computing)WorkflowKnowledge managementSoftware engineeringWorld Wide WebComputer securityBusinessDatabaseWork in processOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) is an architectural paradigm that enables dynamic composition of heterogeneous, independent, multi-vendor business services. A prerequisite for such inter-organizational workflows is the establishment of trustworthiness, which is mostly achieved through non-technical measures, such as legislation, and/or social consent that businesses or organizations pledge themselves to adhere. A business process can only be trustworthy if the behavior of all services in it is trustworthy. Trusted Computing Group (TCG) has defined an open set of specifications for the establishment of trustworthiness through a hardware root-of-trust. This paper has three objectives: firstly, the behavior of individual services in a business process is formally specified. Secondly, to overcome the inherent weaknesses of trust management through software alone, a hardware root of-trust devised by the TCG, is used for the measurement of the behavior of individual services in a business process. Finally, a verification mechanism is detailed through which the trustworthiness of a business process can be verified.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIGI Global eBooksSame topicAccess Control and TrustFrench-language works237,207