MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1612325430 · doi:10.1109/inw.1997.603089

Is there a future for global intelligent network standards?

2002· article· en· W1612325430 on OpenAlexaff
L. Robart

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMobile Agent-Based Network Management
Canadian institutionsNortel (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStandardizationScope (computer science)HarmonizationSoftware deploymentVariety (cybernetics)Relevance (law)TelecommunicationsComputer scienceGlobal networkService (business)Competition (biology)Engineering managementBusinessEngineeringMarketingSoftware engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ITU-T has defined the global Intelligent Network (IN) standard IN Capability Set 1 (refined) (CS-1R) which is now being deployed worldwide. Global IN standardization has progressed in the last several years to produce the ITU-T IN CS-2 Recommendations which includes enhanced capabilities from CS-1R. But is there a future for evolution of global LN standards such as IN CS-3? Concerns have been raised regarding the scope, timeliness, and value of global IN standards. The advent of the IN Forum and the role of national and regional standards bodies also poses threats to global IN standards, in terms of duplication of effort and misalignment of approaches. The telecommunications industry, and IN in particular, is moving towards global service delivery, inter-domain interworking, and deregulation and increased competition. Is there a need for global IN standards in this new environment? This paper highlights key capabilities defined in IN CS-2 and indicates its relevance to the deployment of intelligent networks worldwide. The paper describes steps taken by the ITU-T and the IN subworking group to address concerns related to international standards timeliness and relevance. Finally, the paper discusses a variety of approaches in which the ITU-T IN sub-working group can achieve harmonization of regional interworking requirements and meet the needs of a dynamic industry.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.019
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.004

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMobile Agent-Based Network ManagementFrench-language works237,207