MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1771354966 · doi:10.4018/ijhcr.2014100103

Performance Testing of Mobile Applications on Smartphones

2014· article· en· W1771354966 on OpenAlexaff
Abdurhman Albasir, Valuppillai Mahinthan, Kshirasagar Naik, Abdulhakim Abogharaf, Nishith Goel, Bernard J. Plourde

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Handheld Computing Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGreen IT and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsCistel Technology (Canada)University of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceBandwidth (computing)Mobile deviceWirelessSoftwareMultimediaArchitectureService providerThe InternetAndroid (operating system)Service (business)Computer networkWorld Wide WebTelecommunicationsOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Smartphones became the preferred means of communication among users due to the availability of thousands of applications (apps). Although the hardware and software capabilities of smartphones are on the rise, the apps are primarily constrained by the wireless bandwidth and battery life. In this paper, the authors present a test architecture to: (i) evaluate the energy performance of two different designs of the same mobile app service; and (ii) evaluate the bandwidth and energy impacts of advertisements (ads) on smartphones. The authors' measurements on two video players show that, the proper design results a more energy efficient video players. Next, they compare the bandwidth and energy performance news and magazine websites with ads and without ads. In some cases, ads bandwidth cost reaches 50%, whereas ads energy cost reaches 17.8%. The authors also identified the challenges in reliably performing such tests on a large scale. App developers, users, manufacturers, and Internet Service Providers will benefit from this 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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Handheld Computing ResearchSame topicGreen IT and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207