MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1522548453 · doi:10.1109/icc.2001.936958

When is it worth involving several cells in the call admission control process for multimedia cellular networks?

2002· article· en· W1522548453 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
FieldComputer Science
TopicWireless Communication Networks Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCall Admission ControlScheme (mathematics)Computer networkCellular networkProcess (computing)Admission controlMobile telephonyControl (management)Decision processDistributed computingMultimediaMobile radioWireless networkTelecommunicationsQuality of serviceArtificial intelligenceWirelessOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we enhance our distributed call admission control scheme developed for cellular mobile networks. The new scheme can dynamically adapt to changes in the network load to maintain a target call dropping probability. We investigate the impact of the number of neighboring cells involved in a call admission decision in addition to the cell where the call originated. The neighboring cells provide significant information about their ability to support the new mobile user in the future. This distributed process allows the original cell to make a more clear-sighted admission decision for the new user. Simulations are presented with a detailed analysis of a comparison between two schemes involving different number of cells.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.578

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWireless Communication Networks ResearchFrench-language works237,207