MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995367425 · doi:10.2991/ict4s-14.2014.34

Life cycle assessment of videoconferencing with call management servers relying on virtualization

2014· article· en· W1995367425 on OpenAlexafffund
Nathan Vandromme, Thomas Dandres, Elsa Maurice, Réjean Samson, Saida Khazri, Reza Farrahi Moghaddam, Kim Khoa Nguyen, Yves Lemieux, Mohamed Cheriet

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in computer science research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGreen IT and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureEricsson (Canada)Polytechnique Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsServerVirtualizationComputer scienceVideoconferencingComputer networkOperating systemCloud computing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, data centres have been called out for their particularly high energy consumption, which already accounts for 1.5% of the total global electricity consumption and is among the world's fastest growing energy consumptions.To reduce the data centres' environmental impacts, technologies such as free cooling and sustainable power sources are used.Another newly developed strategy to improve the energy efficiency of data centres is virtualization, which makes it possible to install several operating systems, known as virtual machines (VMs), so that several tasks and users can share a single server.To evaluate the environmental advantages and burdens of this strategy, assessments tools are required.Several studies have already quantified the energetic and environmental benefits of virtualization but often only considered the use phase and CO2 improvement.This study uses life cycle assessment (LCA) to evaluate the environmental impacts of Internet use in videoconferencing (VC).Preliminary results show the advantages of virtualization in the manufacturing, use and endof-life phases.Indeed, when virtualization is implemented, one server can be allocated to several tasks.Therefore, the environmental burden of use and manufacturing will be allocated to the various tasks, decreasing the impact of each one.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.335 · 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

Citations9
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in computer science researchSame topicGreen IT and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207