Developing applications in large scale, dynamic fog computing: A case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary In recent years, fog computing has emerged as a new distributed system model for a large class of applications that are data‐intensive or delay‐sensitive. By exploiting widely distributed computing infrastructure that is located closer to the network edge, communication cost and service response time can be significantly reduced. However, developing this class of applications is not straightforward and requires addressing three key challenges, ie, supporting the dynamic nature of the edge network, managing the context‐dependent characteristics of application logic, and dealing with the large scale of the system. In this paper, we present a case study in building fog computing applications using our open source platform Distributed Node‐RED (DNR). In particular, we show how applications can be decomposed and deployed to a geographically distributed infrastructure using DNR, and how existing software components can be adapted and reused to participate in fog applications. We present a lab‐based implementation of a fog application built using DNR that addresses the first two of the issues highlighted earlier. To validate that our approach also deals with large scale, we augment our live trial with a large scale simulation of the application model, conducted in Omnet++, which shows the scalability of the model and how it supports the dynamic nature of fog applications.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".