MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2248302901 · doi:10.1145/2767181

The State of Public Infrastructure-as-a-Service Cloud Security

2015· review· en· W2248302901 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 Computing Surveys · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Data Security Solutions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCloud computingCloud computing securityCompetition (biology)Computer securityComputer scienceWork (physics)Service (business)State (computer science)Security serviceBusinessInformation securityMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The public Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) cloud industry has reached a critical mass in the past few years, with many cloud service providers fielding competing services. Despite the competition, we find some of the security mechanisms offered by the services to be similar, indicating that the cloud industry has established a number of “best-practices,” while other security mechanisms vary widely, indicating that there is also still room for innovation and experimentation. We investigate these differences and possible underlying reasons for it. We also contrast the security mechanisms offered by public IaaS cloud offerings and with security mechanisms proposed by academia over the same period. Finally, we speculate on how industry and academia might work together to solve the pressing security problems in public IaaS clouds going forward.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Open science
Consensus categoriesOpen science
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0130.010
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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.264 · 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