MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1524178149 · doi:10.1002/9781119941378.ch6

Model Based Availability Management: The Availability Management Framework

2012· other· en· W1524178149 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
Typeother
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware System Performance and Reliability
Canadian institutionsEricsson (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRedundancy (engineering)Computer scienceVocabularySimple (philosophy)Perspective (graphical)Logical data modelDistributed computingData scienceSoftware engineeringData modelingArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter introduces the SA Forum Availability Management Framework (AMF). It looks at concepts visible through the AMF API and therefore the main concerns for application developers when integrating their design with AMF. These concepts are the component and the CSI. The AMF performs the availability management based on a model composed of logical entities that represent these two groups. It compares the main features of the different redundancy models using a simple failure scenario in a relatively simple configuration that still reflected the key points site designers would want to consider when configuring their site. The chapter looks at the information model from an administrative perspective as the model contains the status information of the AMF entities in the system and administrative operations are issued on the objects of this model representing these different entities. Controlled Vocabulary Terms redundancy

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.191
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.228 · 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