MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Multiple Attributes K-Means Clustering for Elastic Cloud Model

2020· article· en· W3113544318 on OpenAlexaff
Tariq Daradkeh, Anjali Agarwal, Yanal Alahmad

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Computing and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProvisioningCloud computingWorkloadComputer scienceCluster analysisControl reconfigurationData centerData setSet (abstract data type)Data miningDistributed computingArtificial intelligenceComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Elastic cloud computing model rely on clear definition of workload demand capacity size and cloud resources provision units. These two factors are unknown for any running cloud model, because of the dynamic changes of workload and cloud data center provisioning resources reconfiguration characteristics. These can be defined as unlabeled data. To achieve an accurate elastic scaling, unlabeled data set should be marked and labeled to finite set of workload demand classes and provisioned resources classes. This work introduces a multiple criteria attribute, k-means clustering, for cloud data center elastic model to achieve a commensurate mapping between workload class and provisioned class. Two validation methods for k-means clustering have been applied to validate the cluster group sets, obtaining a good and reasonable mapping for demand and provisioned classes with accepted time and space complexity. Two groups of sets have been generated for workload demands and for resources provisioned, and a simple look-up mapping has been applied using set joint theory.

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)0.003
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCloud Computing and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207