MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062194413 · doi:10.1145/2391229.2391235

How <i>consistent</i> is your cloud application?

2012· article· en· W2062194413 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed systems and fault tolerance
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsistency (knowledge bases)Cloud computingComputer scienceTransactional leadershipBusiness logicDistributed computingSequential consistencyData consistencyDatabaseConsistency modelArtificial intelligenceOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current cloud datastores usually trade consistency for performance and availability. However, it is often not clear how an application is affected when it runs under a low level of consistency. In fact, current application designers have basically no tools that would help them to get a feeling of which and how many inconsistencies actually occur for their particular application. In this paper, we propose a generalized approach for detecting consistency anomalies for arbitrary cloud applications accessing various types of cloud datastores in transactional or non-transactional contexts. We do not require any knowledge on the business logic of the studied application nor on its selected consistency guarantees. We experimentally verify the effectiveness of our approach by using the Google App Engine and Cassandra datastores.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDistributed systems and fault toleranceFrench-language works237,207