MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Design and Implementation an Intelligent Dynamic Negotiation with Third Party for Cloud Computing

2023· article· en· W4385463260 on OpenAlexaff
Doaa Khalil Ibrahim, noha elatar, weal awad, Ibrahim Hanafy

Bibliographic record

VenueAlfarama Journal of Basic & Applied Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCollaboration in agile enterprises
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCloud computingNegotiationComputer scienceComputer securityDistributed computingOperating systemPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Only a successful network connection is required for the cloud computing concept to provide access to information and computing resources from anywhere, to keep up with the dynamic nature of the cloud environment, like multi-tenancy and various distributed systems, where Cloud Computing is, by nature, multi-tenant, complex, large-scale, and heterogeneous distributed systems. Thus respectively, its processes and strategies need to be automated and integrated .One of the essential processes in the Cloud computing system is negotiating the service level agreement which always has to be elastic and flexible in handling and translating the user services' requirements, where The Service Level Agreement (SLA) is a formal negotiated agreement that helps to identify expectations, clarify responsibilities, and facilitate communication between the service provider and the users, this paper's aim to create a framework for dynamic service level negotiations for the cloud. Also proposed negotiation framework primarily relies on intelligent agents that play the role of third parties to overcome obstacles in static negotiations, like the ongoing changes in business service requirements.

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)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.452
Threshold uncertainty score0.557

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlfarama Journal of Basic & Applied SciencesSame topicCollaboration in agile enterprisesFrench-language works237,207