MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036072219 · doi:10.1109/cloudcom.2011.71

Scoring System Utilization through Business Profiles

2011· article· en· W2036072219 on OpenAlexaff
Jesús Omaña Iglesias, James Thorburn, Trevor Parsons, John Murphy, Patrick O’Sullivan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicScheduling and Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsIBM (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceServerCloud computingContext (archaeology)Service providerRisk analysis (engineering)Service (business)Data scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding system utilization is currently a difficult challenge for industry. Current monitoring tools tend to focus on monitoring critical servers and databases within a narrow technical context, and have not been designed to to manage extremely heterogeneous IT infrastructure such as desktops, laptops, and servers, where the number of devices can be in the order of tens of thousands. This is an issue for many different domains (organizations with large IT infrastructures, cloud computing providers, or software as a service providers) where an understanding of how computer hardware is being utilized is essential for understanding business cost, workload migrations and future investment requirements. Furthermore, organizations find it difficult to understand the raw metrics collected by current monitoring tools, in particular when trying to understand to what degree their systems are being utilized in the context of different business purposes. This paper presents different techniques for the extraction of meaningful resource utilization information from raw monitoring data, a utilization scoring algorithm, and then subsequently outlines a profile-based method for tracking the utilization of IT assets (systems) in large heterogeneous IT environments. We intend to determine how efficiently system resources are utilized considering their business use. We will provide to the end-user an assessment of the system utilization together with additional information to perform remedial action.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0080.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.162 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicScheduling and Optimization AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207