Proceedings of the 18th ACM International Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking and Computing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.084 | 0.072 |
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".