MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1500221254

A case analysis of factors affecting the adoption of grid technology by universities

2011· article· en· W1500221254 on OpenAlexaff
Faith‐Michael Uzoka, Boluwaji Akinnuwesi, Stephen Olatunde Olabiyisi, D Alabi

Bibliographic record

Venue2011 IST-Africa Conference Proceedings · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed and Parallel Computing Systems
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrid computingGridShared resourceResource (disambiguation)Knowledge managementBusinessComputer scienceInformation technologyComputer security
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Grid computing is emerging as the foundation upon which virtual collaborations can be built among large organizations with the aim of integrating and sharing computer resources, and thus offering performance speed and resource availability, which is unattainable by any single institutional technology resources. With the level of increase in the number of tertiary institutions in Africa, and the attendant lack of basic information technology resources, the use of grid computing for collaboration purposes would contribute to the enhancement of research, course delivery, course management, and other aspects of institutional development. This paper carries out an empirical study of the possibility of adoption of grid computing as a vehicle for collaboration among tertiary institutions in Nigeria from the perspective of the potential adopters (users) of the systems. This study uncovers challenges to the adoption of grid technology by the tertiary institutions. The key challenges that significantly affect the adoption of grid computing in tertiary institutions are mainly attitudinal (perceived need and perceived benefits). Infrastructural issues (facilitating conditions) also impose limitations on the ability of universities to implement grid computing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2011 IST-Africa Conference ProceedingsSame topicDistributed and Parallel Computing SystemsFrench-language works237,207