A Study on Strategic Provisioning of Cloud Computing Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cloud computing is currently emerging as an ever-changing, growing paradigm that models "everything-as-a-service." Virtualised physical resources, infrastructure, and applications are supplied by service provisioning in the cloud. The evolution in the adoption of cloud computing is driven by clear and distinct promising features for both cloud users and cloud providers. However, the increasing number of cloud providers and the variety of service offerings have made it difficult for the customers to choose the best services. By employing successful service provisioning, the essential services required by customers, such as agility and availability, pricing, security and trust, and user metrics can be guaranteed by service provisioning. Hence, continuous service provisioning that satisfies the user requirements is a mandatory feature for the cloud user and vitally important in cloud computing service offerings. Therefore, we aim to review the state-of-the-art service provisioning objectives, essential services, topologies, user requirements, necessary metrics, and pricing mechanisms. We synthesize and summarize different provision techniques, approaches, and models through a comprehensive literature review. A thematic taxonomy of cloud service provisioning is presented after the systematic review. Finally, future research directions and open research issues are identified.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".