Towards a Rule Modeling Framework for Context-aware Smart Service Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since business rules aim at enforcing regulations in an organization, they are critical in governing business activities from a managerial standpoint. On the other hand, another type of rules has emerged in context-aware service systems: context rules. Context rules are employed for context reasoning to recommend and operate the right services in an appropriate manner. In this sense, context rules ensure the smartness of services in smart service systems. For decades, researchers and practitioners have addressed rule modelling and rule management in information systems and business services. However, in relation to context-aware services in smart service systems, there is a lack of exploring the rule aspect, especially considering how business rules and context rules are involved in such a system. The purpose of this paper is to propose a rule modelling framework (called RuCBS framework) for expressing rules in context-aware smart service systems over the three aspects of service science (Management, Science, and Engineering). The framework presents concepts, a meta-model that connects these concepts, and rule patterns. The framework is validated with a case study on banking services. Future research directions on rules in context-aware smart service systems are also discussed.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".