MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2406383232 · doi:10.1504/ijcc.2015.071717

Cloud-dew architecture

2015· article· en· W2406383232 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

VenueInternational Journal of Cloud Computing · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsServerCloud computingDewComputer scienceThe InternetArchitectureWorld Wide WebDatabaseSingle-chip Cloud ComputerCloud serverOperating systemCloud testingComputer networkCloud computing security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Users derive many benefits by storing personal data in cloud computing services; however the drawback of storing data in these services is that the user cannot access his/her own data when an internet connection is not available. To solve this problem in an efficient and elegant way, we propose the cloud-dew architecture. Cloud-dew architecture is an extension of the client-server architecture. In the extension, servers are further classified into cloud servers and dew servers. The dew servers are web servers that reside on user's local computers and have a pluggable structure so that scripts and databases of websites can be installed easily. The cloud-dew architecture not only makes the personal data stored in the cloud continuously accessible by the user, but also enables a new application: web-surfing without an internet connection. An experimental system is presented to demonstrate the ideas of the cloud-dew architecture.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.768
Threshold uncertainty score0.616

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0030.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.263 · 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