A Proposition of Modifications and Extensions of Cloud Computing Standards for Trust Characteristics Measures
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, we have witnessed a marked rise in the number of cloud service providers with each offering a plethora of cloud services with different objectives. Gaining confidence for cloud technology adoption as well as selecting a suitable cloud service provider, both require a proper evaluation of cloud service trust characteristics. Hence, the evaluation of cloud services before used by the customer is of utmost importance. In this article, we adapt the extracted trust characteristics from both system and software quality standards and cloud computing standards, for evaluating cloud services. Moreover, we derive measures for each trust characteristics to evaluate the trustworthiness of different cloud service providers, and generalize these trust measures for any type of cloud services (e.g. Software as a Service, Platform as a Service, and Infrastructure as a Service). Our work thereby demonstrates a way to apply generalized trust measures for cloud services and therefore contributes to a better understanding of cloud services to evaluate their quality characteristics. As part of our ongoing research, the results of this study will be used to develop a comprehensive cloud trust model.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it