MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1497176770

Comparison of Bandwidth Usage: Service Location Protocol and Jini

2000· article· en· W1497176770 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIPv6, Mobility, Handover, Networks, Security
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDynamic Host Configuration ProtocolComputer scienceBandwidth (computing)Computer networkPopularityMobile deviceProtocol (science)Resource (disambiguation)World Wide WebIp address
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently there has been an increase in the development of technologies for resource discovery, since for example, resources such as printers, mail boxes, memory space, and disk space are available in every network, ready to be used for any host. This has been caused, in part, by the growth in the popularity of portable devices such as laptops, PDAs, and cell phones which require configuration each time they attach to a new network segment. Since the configuration of such devices is tedious and sometimes complicated, there have been some attempts in past years to solve this problem, such as the DHCP approach. This paper focuses on the bandwidth analysis of two new approaches for dealing with resource discovery: the Service Location Protocol (SLP) and Jini. This work is particularly important since the communication among the devices is often wireless, whereas bandwidth is a limited resource. We present equations for characterizing the usage of bandwidth made by SLP and Jini, based on their specification, on previous work and experiments.

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)0.000
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 score0.493
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.272 · 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