On the impact of quality of experience (QoE) in a vehicular cloud with various providers
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".