MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104538152 · doi:10.1109/ccgrid.2002.1017189

Towards Trust-Aware Resource Management in Grid Computing Systems

2003· article· en· W2104538152 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 and Parallel Computing Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceGrid computingGridSemantic gridEncryptionResource management (computing)Distributed computingTrust management (information system)Overhead (engineering)Process (computing)Resource allocationResource (disambiguation)DRMAAAccess controlResource Management SystemComputer securityComputer networkOperating systemWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resource management is a central part of a Grid computing system. In a large-scale wide-area system such as the Grid, security is a prime concern. One approach is to be conservative and implement techniques such as sandboxing, encryption, and other access control mechanisms on all elements of the Grid. However, the overhead caused by such a design may negate the advantages of Grid computing. This study examines the integration of the notion of "trust" into resource management such that the allocation process is aware of the security implications. We present a formal definition of trust and discuss a model for incorporating trust into Grid systems. As an example application of the ideas proposed, a resource management algorithm that incorporates trust is presented. The performance of the algorithm is examined via simulations.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score0.772

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations160
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDistributed and Parallel Computing SystemsFrench-language works237,207