Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on a Research Agenda for Maintenance and Evolution of Service-Oriented Systems (MESOA 2010)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Fourth International Workshop on Maintenance and Evolution of Service-Oriented Systems (MESOA 2010), organized by members of the Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute's technical staff, was held at the 26th International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM 2010) in Timisoara, Romania, on September 17, 2010. The goal for MESOA 2010 was to share current research efforts and discuss emerging technologies in the maintenance and evolution of service-oriented systems. A second goal of the workshop was to identify areas of future work needed to address existing gaps and problems in the taxonomy of research topics in service-oriented architecture (SOA). This report summarizes the workshop and includes the accepted papers that were the basis for the presentations given during the workshop. Topics include using simulation models to evolve business processes, a requirements-driven framework for root cause analysis in SOA environments, SOA integration as an alternative to source migration, proactive adaptation as illustrated by the S-Cube service life cycle, a dynamic framework for quality web-service discovery, a characterization of policies that govern SOAs, and context-driven adaptive monitoring for supporting SOA governance. The report concludes with highlights from the discussions among workshop attendees.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".