MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4298146276 · doi:10.1049/sfw2.12072

A decision framework for cloud migration: A hybrid approach

2022· article· en· W4298146276 on OpenAlexaff
Mirsaeid Hosseini Shirvani, Gholam R. Amin, Sara Babaeikiadehi

Bibliographic record

VenueIET Software · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGreen IT and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsSaint John Regional HospitalUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCloud computingOutsourcingComputer scienceProcess (computing)Software deploymentProcess managementResource (disambiguation)Service (business)Risk analysis (engineering)Knowledge managementManagement scienceOperations researchEngineeringBusinessSoftware engineeringMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Cloud computing is utilised for information technology outsourcing of either industries or organisations. There are several inhibitors and motivations related factors to determine whether one can embrace the cloud services or not. Therefore, this paper presents a holistic and flexible cloud decision framework by taking a wide spectrum weighted factors related to the acceptance or denial of the cloud services. To have sustainable decision and obviating the shortcomings of the existing approaches on the cloud service adoption, a deep understanding of organisation's business process requirements and cost implications is required. To utilise the proposed model, the functional and non‐functional requirements associated to the business process of an adopter organisation must be specified. To reach a concrete decision, a hybrid approach is applied by incorporating the analytic hierarchy process and Delphi methods to prevent subjective outcomes and to have diverse experiences at the same time. To support the decision model, some economic theories and Moore law are used. To verify the proposed model, a Telecommunication Company is considered as a case study for its 6‐year plan of investment. The simulation results of conducted scenarios for the mentioned mid‐scale case study prove that it is logical to establish on‐premises a private datacenter and utilising the hybrid deployment once it encounters abrupt burst of resource demand. Altogether, the proposed holistic model can be customised for different users with different scales.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations14
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIET SoftwareSame topicGreen IT and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207