MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007360238 · doi:10.4236/jsea.2014.78063

Cloud Computing and Big Data: A Review of Current Service Models and Hardware Perspectives

2014· review· en· W2007360238 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

VenueJournal of Software Engineering and Applications · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Computing and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCloud computingBig dataComputer scienceData scienceAnalyticsData processingProcess (computing)Service (business)Distributed computingDatabaseData miningOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Big Data applications are pervading more and more aspects of our life, encompassing commercial and scientific uses at increasing rates as we move towards exascale analytics. Examples of Big Data applications include storing and accessing user data in commercial clouds, mining of social data, and analysis of large-scale simulations and experiments such as the Large Hadron Collider. An increasing number of such data—intensive applications and services are relying on clouds in order to process and manage the enormous amounts of data required for continuous operation. It can be difficult to decide which of the many options for cloud processing is suitable for a given application; the aim of this paper is therefore to provide an interested user with an overview of the most important concepts of cloud computing as it relates to processing of Big Data.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score0.772

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.253 · 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