Scoring System Utilization through Business Profiles
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
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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