MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4361019075 · doi:10.3390/s23073488

Energy Aware Load Balancing Framework for Smart Grid Using Cloud and Fog Computing

2023· article· en· W4361019075 on OpenAlexaff
Saurabh Singhal, Senthil Athithan, Madani Abdu Alomar, Rakesh Kumar, Bhisham Sharma, Gautam Srivastava, Jerry Chun‐Wei Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsBrandon University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCloud computingComputer scienceVirtual machineEnergy consumptionDistributed computingSmart gridLoad balancing (electrical power)Response timeGridDemand responseEfficient energy useReal-time computingOperating systemEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data centers are producing a lot of data as cloud-based smart grids replace traditional grids. The number of automated systems has increased rapidly, which in turn necessitates the rise of cloud computing. Cloud computing helps enterprises offer services cheaply and efficiently. Despite the challenges of managing resources, longer response plus processing time, and higher energy consumption, more people are using cloud computing. Fog computing extends cloud computing. It adds cloud services that minimize traffic, increase security, and speed up processes. Cloud and fog computing help smart grids save energy by aggregating and distributing the submitted requests. The paper discusses a load-balancing approach in Smart Grid using Rock Hyrax Optimization (RHO) to optimize response time and energy consumption. The proposed algorithm assigns tasks to virtual machines for execution and shuts off unused virtual machines, reducing the energy consumed by virtual machines. The proposed model is implemented on the CloudAnalyst simulator, and the results demonstrate that the proposed method has a better and quicker response time with lower energy requirements as compared with both static and dynamic algorithms. The suggested algorithm reduces processing time by 26%, response time by 15%, energy consumption by 29%, cost by 6%, and delay by 14%.

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 categoriesnone
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 score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score0.808

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.248 · 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.

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

Citations28
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicIoT and Edge/Fog ComputingFrench-language works237,207