MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1567216278

Matchmaking with limited knowledge of resources on clouds and grids

2010· article· en· W1567216278 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

VenueInternational Symposium on Performance Evaluation of Computer and Telecommunication Systems · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Computing and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReservationComputer scienceDistributed computingCloud computingScheduling (production processes)GridGrid computingProcessor schedulingA priori and a posterioriResource (disambiguation)Middleware (distributed applications)Computer networkOperating systemEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clouds and grids are distributed resource infrastructures that are subjected to both on demand as well as Advance reservation (AR) requests. Matchmaking or assigning an appropriate resource to an advance reservation request is an important operation performed by the resource management middleware. Most existing research on matchmaking strategies uses a priori knowledge of the local scheduling policy used at a resource in the cloud/grid. However, exact knowledge of the scheduling policy used at every resource is unlikely to be available on real heterogeneous systems deploying a variety of different resources. This paper presents a matchmaking strategy that does not use detailed knowledge of the scheduling policies used at resources. Results of performance simulations for the strategy are very encouraging.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.637
Threshold uncertainty score0.475

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.256 · 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