MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127110276 · doi:10.1002/cpe.3026

Accelerating R‐based analytics on the cloud

2013· article· en· W2127110276 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueConcurrency and Computation Practice and Experience · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Computing and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCloud computingProgrammerScalabilityAnalyticsWorkstationSet (abstract data type)Software

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary This paper addresses how the benefits of cloud‐based infrastructure can be harnessed for analytical workloads. Often, the software handling analytical workloads is not developed by a professional programmer but on an ad hoc basis by analysts in high‐level programming environments such as R or MATLAB. The goal of this research is to allow Analysts to take an analytical job that executes on their personal workstations and with minimum effort execute it on cloud infrastructure and manage both the resources and the data required by the job. If this can be facilitated gracefully, then the Analyst benefits from on‐demand resources, low maintenance cost and scalability of computing resources, all of which are offered by the cloud. In this paper, a Platform for Parallel R‐based Analytics on the Cloud (P2RAC) that is placed between an Analyst and a cloud infrastructure is proposed and implemented. P2RAC offers a set of command‐line tools for managing the resources, such as instances and clusters, the data and the execution of the software on the Amazon Elastic Computing Cloud infrastructure. Experimental studies are pursued using two parallel problems and the results obtained confirm the feasibility of employing P2RAC for solving large‐scale analytical problems on the cloud.Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.633

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConcurrency and Computation Practice and ExperienceSame topicCloud Computing and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207