MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073140875 · doi:10.1109/cloudcom.2014.115

Key Challenges and Opportunities in Cloud Computing and Implications on Service Requirements: Evidence from a Systematic Literature Review

2014· article· en· W2073140875 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
TopicCloud Data Security Solutions
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCloud computingComputer scienceScalabilityKey (lock)Quality of serviceRanking (information retrieval)Cloud computing securityService (business)Computer securityProcess managementDatabaseComputer networkBusinessInformation retrieval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on the findings from a systematic literature review (SLR), this paper presents a ranking of the key challenges and opportunities for cloud computing services and derives key requirements of effective cloud services. Top challenges include security, quality of service (QoS), privacy and resource management and scalability, whereas top benefits include reduced computing costs, consistent QoS and service level agreements (SLA), increased organizational agility and improved scalability. This paper also presents a ranking of 12 cloud security domains based on this SLR. Implications for building effective cloud computing services that meet users' requirements are discussed.

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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.865
Threshold uncertainty score0.522

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations17
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCloud Data Security SolutionsFrench-language works237,207