Proceedings of the 18th ACM International Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking and Computing
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Welcome to MobiHoc 2007, the Eighth ACM International Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking and Computing, and to beautiful Montreal, Quebec, Canada! The first MobiHoc was held in 2000 in Boston, MA, as a workshop affiliated with the ACM MobiCom conference. Since then, MobiHoc has continued to evolved, first into a two-day separate symposium, and then into a three-day symposium, proceeded by a full day of tutorials. This year marks another change for MobiHoc, in its co-location with MobiCom. The co-location of the two conferences provides attendees with a unique opportunity to attend both programs, as well as joint plenary sessions. A total of 146 papers were submitted to the conference this year, from which the Technical Program Committee (TPC) selected the best 27 papers to make up the final program. As an indication of the international reach of the conference, this year's submitted papers came from authors in 24 different countries. The final program contains papers from 7 of these countries. Many of the papers submitted were of very high quality, and it is the committee's job to determine the top papers that are best suited for the conference. All submitted papers were judged based on their quality through double-blind reviewing, where the identities of the authors were withheld from the reviewers. The review process included first and second round reviews. Each paper received three to four independent first round reviews. This was followed by a second round review process, during which the reviewers participated in an online discussion about the merits of the paper. The goal was to reach consensus on the recommendation for the paper, which could be either accept, reject, or discuss during the TPC meeting. Additional reviews were sought prior to the program committee meeting in the case of papers that had reviews with diverging opinions or where no consensus could be reached during the second round review phase. Each paper was assigned a TPC Lead. Based on the online discussion, the TPC Lead entered an accept/discuss/reject recommendation for the paper. Prior to the meeting, each paper had between four and five reviews (including the TPC Lead recommendation) from program committee members. The TPC meeting was held in Boston, MA on April 13th . Approximately 45 papers were discussed during the full day meeting. Each TPC member reviewed an average of 11 papers before the meeting and was the TPC lead for three papers. In addition, many TPC members completed additional reviews during the course of the meeting. We sincerely appreciate and thank the program committee for their time, effort and enthusiasm. The quality of the conference is testament to their expertise and dedication. We thoroughly enjoyed working with them.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,084 | 0,072 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».