MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405657255 · doi:10.18280/ria.380601

Analysis of the MapReduce Performance in Hadoop

2024· article· fr· W4405657255 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d intelligence artificielle · 2024
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Mining Algorithms and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDatabaseOperating systemParallel computing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The need for Big Data platforms in recent years is increasing steadily, given the amount of data produced or consumed every second by millions of users and machines, and this huge volume of data has to be processed, managed, or stored.Several constraints must be taken into consideration when allocating this data and processing it on big data platforms, and among the major concerns of big data clients who are always looking to reduce their costs remains time and budget.We can say that time is among the major factors that determine the performance of a processing model of a big data platform and which has a direct effect on other allocation constraints.In this paper, we conducted an analytical study of the performance of MapReduce which is the processing model of the Hadoop platform.Our study shows that the estimation of MapReduce performance remains difficult and depends not only on the scheduler used but also on other factors including the type of workload itself.

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.

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 score0.815
Threshold uncertainty score0.545

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.240 · 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