MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2191682919 · doi:10.1080/07391102.2015.1127182

Use of cloud computing in biomedicine

2015· review· en· W2191682919 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

VenueJournal of Biomolecular Structure and Dynamics · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCloud computingBiomedicineComputer scienceScalabilityData scienceInformation and Communications TechnologyElasticity (physics)Distributed computingWorld Wide WebDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nowadays, biomedicine is characterised by a growing need for processing of large amounts of data in real time. This leads to new requirements for information and communication technologies (ICT). Cloud computing offers a solution to these requirements and provides many advantages, such as cost savings, elasticity and scalability of using ICT. The aim of this paper is to explore the concept of cloud computing and the related use of this concept in the area of biomedicine. Authors offer a comprehensive analysis of the implementation of the cloud computing approach in biomedical research, decomposed into infrastructure, platform and service layer, and a recommendation for processing large amounts of data in biomedicine. Firstly, the paper describes the appropriate forms and technological solutions of cloud computing. Secondly, the high-end computing paradigm of cloud computing aspects is analysed. Finally, the potential and current use of applications in scientific research of this technology in biomedicine is discussed.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.941

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.276 · 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