MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4255358037 · doi:10.1109/icws.2004.1314727

On feature interactions among Web services

2004· article· en· W4255358037 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
TopicService-Oriented Architecture and Web Services
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeature (linguistics)Computer scienceSoftware deploymentWeb serviceQuality (philosophy)Service (business)Process managementKnowledge managementData scienceWorld Wide WebSoftware engineeringBusinessMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Web services promise to allow businesses to adapt rapidly to changes in the business environment, and the needs of different customers. However, the rapid introduction of new services paired with the dynamicity of the business environment also leads to undesirable interactions that negatively impact service quality and user satisfaction. In this paper, we propose an approach for modeling such undesirable interactions as feature interactions. Our approach for detecting interactions is based on goal-oriented analysis and scenario modeling. It allows us to reason about feature interactions in terms of goal conflicts, and feature deployment. Two case studies illustrate the approach. The paper concludes with a discussion, and an outlook on future research.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.770
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0040.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.251 · 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