MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1641547199 · doi:10.1364/jon.1.000056

Comparison of two optical-core networks

2001· article· en· W1641547199 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

VenueJournal of Optical Networking · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Optical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsNortel (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOptical pathComputer scienceComputer networkCore (optical fiber)Optical switchStar (game theory)Mesh networkingDistributed computingEngineeringElectronic engineeringTelecommunicationsOpticsMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The resource requirements for two optical-core network architectures are compared. One architecture is a highly optimized, multihop mesh of optical switches, in which the number of optical nodes traversed by a light path is bounded. The other is a single-hop composite-star structure. We show in a case study that although the composite star may require a higher fiber-distance value than the optimized mesh structure, it needs many fewer ports and a smaller optical switching fabric to achieve the same throughput. The single-hop network does not require any wavelngth conversion, it eliminates the need for traffic engineering, and is resilient to changes in the spatial distribution of traffic. Results are quantified through simulation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.621
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.277 · 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