MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1552483219 · doi:10.1109/ccnc.2015.7158078

Two-phase ontology-based resource allocation approach for IaaS cloud service

2015· article· en· W1552483219 on OpenAlexaff
Khaled Metwally, Abdallah Jarray, Ahmed Karmouch

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Computing and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCloud computingComputer scienceDistributed computingResource allocationClosenessOntologyResource (disambiguation)Service (business)Computer networkDatabaseOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a composition-based resource allocation approach to cloud infrastructure-as-a-service (IaaS). A number of previous proposals have addressed resource allocation for IaaS services with bandwidth guarantee as the main obstacle to accessing datacenter-based cloud resources. Less focus has been put on utilization of hosting resources, i.e. computing and storage. Shortcomings with these proposals (i) may ensue in a high blocking of IaaS requests and (ii) a less efficient use of datacenter resources, which may impact a provider's revenue. In this research paper, a Two-Phase IaaS resource allocation approach (2P-IaaS) is proposed to address these shortcomings: (i) hosting resources mapping phase, and (ii) connectivity composition phase. This approach adopts a semantic ontology model with its associated reasoning capabilities to represent, discover and assign diverse cloud resources to IaaS requests. Furthermore, the proposed approach utilizes semantic similarity and closeness centrality to define an efficient cloud IaaS topology that connects the assigned resources. In this research, experiments on various sets of IaaS requests show significant advantages when compared with selected benchmarks.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.523
Threshold uncertainty score0.567

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.245 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations10
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCloud Computing and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207