MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2807971989 · doi:10.1007/s00607-018-0631-8

On personalized cloud service provisioning for mobile users using adaptive and context-aware service composition

2018· article· en· W2807971989 on OpenAlexaff
Elarbi Badidi, Yacine Atif, Quan Z. Sheng, Muthucumaru Maheswaran

Bibliographic record

VenueComputing · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicContext-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceProvisioningPersonalizationCloud computingContext (archaeology)World Wide WebService providerService (business)Service delivery frameworkMobile computingMobile QoSComputer networkBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cloud service providers typically compose their services from a number of elementary services, which are developed in-house or built by third-party providers. Personalization of composite services in mobile environments is an interesting and challenging issue to address, given the opportunity to factor-in diverse user preferences and the plethora of mobile devices at use in multiple contexts. This work proposes a framework to address personalization in mobile cloud-service provisioning. Service personalization and adaptation may be considered at different levels, including the user profile, the mobile device in use, the context of the user and the composition specification. The user’s mobile device and external services are typical sources of context information, used in our proposed algorithm to elicit context-aware services. The selection process is guided by quality-of-context criteria that combine cloud-service provider requirements and user preferences. Hence, the paper proposes an integrated framework for enhancing personalized mobile cloud-services, based on a composition approach that adapts context information using a common model of service metadata specification.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputingSame topicContext-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsFrench-language works237,207