MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2970320203 · doi:10.1109/scc.2019.00016

Recommending Energy-Efficient Data Mining Services with Data as Contextual Factors

2019· article· en· W2970320203 on OpenAlexaff
Zainab Al-Zanbouri, Chen Ding

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRecommender Systems and Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRecommender systemBaseline (sea)Service (business)Process (computing)Web serviceData miningEnergy consumptionData scienceQuality of serviceData modelingInformation retrievalWorld Wide WebDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Energy-efficiency is considered an important aspect when consuming web services. For data mining services, input dataset can have an impact on the energy consumption level as well as other QoS values of a service. For instance, a service not good at dealing with high-dimensional data may consume more energy than another service offering the same functionality. Therefore, when recommending such services, it is beneficial to consider dataset information in the recommendation process. However, in the past research on service recommender systems, usually, only the historical data on how services are consumed by different users is taken as the main source for making recommendations. Sometimes, contextual factors such as time and location (when and where the services are consumed) are also included. In this paper, we propose to consider dataset information as contextual factors in the recommendation model. We apply contextual modeling approach to incorporate them into our service recommender system. We explore different ways of representing dataset information as contextual factors and investigate their impacts on recommendation accuracy. Experimental results show that our introduced approach outperforms the baseline model by 11.7-22.6% on various evaluation metrics measuring recommendation accuracy.

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 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 categoriesOpen science
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 score0.804
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0060.004
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRecommender Systems and TechniquesFrench-language works237,207