On the impact of quality of experience (QoE) in a vehicular cloud with various providers
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the acceleration of mobile applications, mobile cloud computing is envisioned to be the best fit solution to make a compromise between users' and service providers' benefits. An extension of mobile cloud computing, vehicular cloud computing, provides another viable solution, by consolidating the benefits of mobile cloud computing and vehicular communications. Among several challenges in this environment, privacy, service price and provision delay are the most important. In this paper, we propose a framework to address these challenges in a vehicular cloud based on a quality-of-experience (QoE) approach, discuss the drawbacks of existing architectures, and propose and validate a new architecture. This architecture is an extension of a system [1] we proposed in previous work. QoE is obtained via other mobile nodes in the vehicular cloud, and re-formulated according to a weighted combination of the three key factors: privacy, price and delay. Privacy is defined as a function of the information revealed to the service provider. We evaluate our proposal via simulations, and based on the numerical results, we show that QoE-based service provisioning in a vehicular cloud improves upon a naïve service provision approach, as well as other approaches that address only one of the factors.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it