Bibliographic record
Abstract
In June 2023, the ARDC ran a survey of all Australian researchers and research support staff to better understand how they use cloud computing services. This report analyses the findings of the survey.<br> <br> The survey was designed to help guide the development of the ARDC Nectar Research Cloud by identifying service gaps and opportunities to enhance its functionality. The survey results will also contribute to the National Digital Research Infrastructure Strategy, which stems from the 2021 National Research Infrastructure Roadmap.<br> <br> CONTENTS:<br> 1. Executive Summary<br> 2. Background and Context<br> 3. Discipline Grouping<br> 4. Respondents<br> 5. General Use of Cloud<br> 6. Commercial Cloud<br> 7. ARDC Nectar Research Cloud<br> 8. Nectar Cloud vs. Commercial Cloud<br> 9. Australian Results vs Canadian Results<br> 9.1 Background<br> 9.2 Respondents<br> 9.3 General Use of Cloud<br> 9.4 Commercial Cloud<br> 9.5 Nectar Research Cloud/Alliance Community Cloud<br> 10. Conclusions<br> Appendix A: Survey Details<br> A.1 Response rate<br> A.2 Survey issues<br> <br> Learn more about the ARDC Nectar Research Cloud.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".