MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2915125723 · doi:10.1145/3286688

Sustainable Offloading in Mobile Cloud Computing

2019· review· en· W2915125723 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

VenueACM Computing Surveys · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsBrock UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMobile cloud computingCloud computingMobile deviceDistributed computingEnergy consumptionMobile computingScalabilityComputer networkOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mobile Cloud Computing (MCC) has been extensively explored to be applied as a vital tool to enhance the capabilities of mobile devices, increasing computing power, expanding storage capacity, and prolonging battery life. Offloading works as the fundamental feature that enables MCC to relieve task load and extend data storage through an accessible cloud resource pool. Several initiatives have drawn attention to delivering MCC-supported energy-oriented offloading as a method to cope with a lately steep increase in the number of rich mobile applications and the enduring limitations of battery technologies. However, MCC offloading relieves only the burden of energy consumption of mobile devices; performance concerns about Cloud resources, in most cases, are not considered when dynamically allocating them for dealing with mobile tasks. The application context of MCC, encompassing urban computing, aggravates the situation with very large-scale scenarios, posing as a challenge for achieving greener solutions in the scope of Cloud resources. Thus, this article gathers and analyzes recent energy-aware offloading protocols and architectures, as well as scheduling and balancing algorithms employed toward Cloud green computing. This survey provides a comparison among system architectures by identifying their most notable advantages and disadvantages. The existing enabling frameworks are categorized and compared based on the stage of the task offloading process and resource management types, describing current open challenges and future research directions.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Open science
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Open science
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0080.009
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.336
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