MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2234748059 · doi:10.1145/2822896

Designing Adaptive Applications Deployed on Cloud Environments

2016· article· en· W2234748059 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceAdaptation (eye)Cloud computingRanking (information retrieval)Task (project management)Distributed computingQuality (philosophy)Control (management)SoftwareData miningMachine learningArtificial intelligenceSystems engineeringOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Designing an adaptive system to meet its quality constraints in the face of environmental uncertainties can be a challenging task. In a cloud environment, a designer has to consider and evaluate different control points, that is, those variables that affect the quality of the software system. This article presents a methodology for designing adaptive systems in cloud environments. The proposed methodology consists of several phases that take high-level stakeholders’ adaptation goals and transform them into lower-level MAPE-K loop control points. The MAPE-K loops are then activated at runtime using search-based algorithms. Our methodology includes the elicitation, ranking, and evaluation of control points, all meant to enable a runtime search-based adaptation. We conducted several experiments to evaluate the different phases of our methodology and to validate the runtime adaptation efficiency.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.732
Threshold uncertainty score0.741

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.211 · 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