MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125088619 · doi:10.5539/cis.v7n4p39

Disaster Recovery in Cloud Computing: A Survey

2014· article· en· W2125088619 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer and Information Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Computing and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCloud computingDisaster recoveryComputer scienceOpen researchComputer securityService (business)Data scienceWorld Wide WebBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Disaster recovery is a persistent problem in IT platforms. This problem is more crucial in cloud computing, because Cloud Service Providers (CSPs) have to provide the services to their customers even if the data center is down, due to a disaster. In the past few years, researchers have shown interest to disaster recovery using cloud computing, and a considerable amount of literature has been published in this area. However, to the best of our knowledge, there is a lack of precise survey for detailed analysis of cloud-based disaster recovery. To fill this gap, this paper provides an extensive survey of disaster recovery concepts and research in the cloud environments. We present different taxonomy of disaster recovery mechanisms, main challenges and proposed solutions. We also describe the cloud-based disaster recovery platforms and identify open issues related to disaster recovery.

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)0.003
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score0.800

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.218 · 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