CCCloud: Context-Aware and Credible Cloud Service Selection Based on Subjective Assessment and Objective Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the diversity and dynamic nature of cloud services, it is usually hard for potential cloud consumers to select the most suitable cloud service. This paper proposes CCCloud: a context-aware and credible cloud service selection model based on the comparison and aggregation of subjective assessments extracted from ordinary cloud consumers and objective assessments from quantitative performance testing parties. We propose a novel approach to evaluate cloud users' credibility, which not only can accurately evaluate how truthfully they assess cloud services, but also resist user collusion. In addition, in our model, objective assessments are used as benchmarks to filter out potentially biased subjective assessments, and then objective assessments and subjective assessments are aggregated to evaluate the overall performance of a cloud service. Furthermore, our model takes the contexts of objective assessments and subjective assessments into account. By calculating the similarity between different contexts, the benchmark level of objective assessments is dynamically adjusted according to context similarity, and the aggregated final scores of alternative cloud services are weighted by the similarity between the contexts of a potential cloud consumer and every testing party. This makes our cloud service selection model reflect potential cloud consumers' customized requirements more effectively. Finally, our proposed model is evaluated through the experiments conducted under different conditions. The experimental results demonstrate that our model significantly outperforms the existing work, especially in the resistance of user collusion.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".