CLOUDQUAL: A Quality Model for Cloud Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cloud computing is an important component of the backbone of the Internet of Things (IoT). Clouds will be required to support large numbers of interactions with varying quality requirements. Service quality will therefore be an important differentiator among cloud providers. In order to distinguish themselves from their competitors, cloud providers should offer superior services that meet customers' expectations. A quality model can be used to represent, measure, and compare the quality of the providers, such that a mutual understanding can be established among cloud stakeholders. In this paper, we take a service perspective and initiate a quality model named CLOUDQUAL for cloud services. It is a model with quality dimensions and metrics that targets general cloud services. CLOUDQUAL contains six quality dimensions, i.e., usability, availability, reliability, responsiveness, security, and elasticity, of which usability is subjective, whereas the others are objective. To demonstrate the effectiveness of CLOUDQUAL, we conduct empirical case studies on three storage clouds. Results show that CLOUDQUAL can evaluate their quality. To demonstrate its soundness, we validate CLOUDQUAL with standard criteria and show that it can differentiate service quality.
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 | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".