MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1563068058 · doi:10.1109/iscc.2004.1358420

Integrated traffic grooming in converged data-optical networks

2004· article· en· W1563068058 on OpenAlexaff
Nasir Ghani, Chadi Assi, Abdallah Shami, Maifuz Ali

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Optical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultiprotocol Label SwitchingComputer scienceComputer networkProvisioningLabel switchingScalabilityTraffic groomingDistributed computingWavelength-division multiplexingMultiplexingBandwidth (computing)Traffic engineeringNetwork packetQuality of serviceTelecommunicationsWavelength

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Optical dense wavelength division multiplexing (DWDM) has yielded unprecedented levels of bandwidth scalability. In order to exploit these gains, new converged multiservice transport setups have been evolved, most notably under the multiprotocol label switching (MPLS) and generalized MPLS (GMPLS) frameworks. These paradigms offer very efficient data-optical integration and enable a host of new service capabilities. As operators deploy these new technologies, the provisioning of "subwavelength" demands over wavelengths has become a crucial requirement, i.e., traffic engineering/grooming. This work addresses data-optical grooming in converged GMPLS networks. Here, novel integrated constraint-based routing algorithms are developed to provision subwavelength demands at both packet-switching and lightpath routing levels. Simulations indicate notable performance gains and resource efficiencies with the proposed schemes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Optical Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207