Proceedings of the 4th ACM international workshop on Wireless mobile multimedia
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
It is with great pleasure that we welcome you to the historical city of Rome, Italy and to the Fourth Annual International Workshop on Wireless Mobile Multimedia - WoWMoM '01We believe that this will be the best WoWMoM thus far. We base our assertion on this year's program, which we are very proud of. The program consists of 11 technical papers and presentations, broken up into three sessions. The papers contain research results on a variety of problems being faced by deployers and users of wireless technology world-wide.We are able to put together a strong program because of the excellent response we received to our call for papers. We received a total of 48 papers from some of the top research institutes from around the world. Statistically speaking, we received the largest number of papers inWoWMoM's history, 33% more papers than last year. 65% of the papers were from academia and 35% from industry. 47% of the papers were from the United States and Canada and 53% from Europe and Asia. These numbers reflect the fact that WoWMoM is truly an international event and that the area of wireless mobile multimedia is still growing. WoWMoM's success can be attributed to its International Program Committee (PC) whose members are some of the strongest active researchers in the field of wireless multimedia, and who represent our global community remarkably. This year's Program Committee had to work under severe time constraints but they came through with flying colors. All in all we generated a total of 144 reviews, with each committee member contributing over 17 reviews in less than 4 weeks. The process we employed for selecting the final set of papers was rigorous. Once all the reviews were in, we ranked order the papers using different criterions, (for example, overall recommendation, originality of the ideas, product of these two criterion etc.) and then looked at the resulting lists to identify the better papers. We then went through the reviews of each of the papers, reading reviewer comments while keeping in mind the confidence they had placed on their reviews, and looking at the relevance of the paper to WoWMoM. We marked papers with disparate reviews and asked the PC members to resolve their differences and come up with a unanimous recommendation. We discussed over 75% of the papers and following this came up with our list of recommendations. The PC reviewed these recommendations one more time and subsequently the final program was announced. Owing to the fact that WoWMoM is a one-day workshop and the quality of the papers was paramount to us, we selected less than 25% of the submissions. We feel that the result of all this effort is that we can bring to you a fairly high-quality program, which we hope you will enjoy and benefit from.
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.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 découle