MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W187528409

Contamination and Decontamination in Majority-Based Systems

2009· article· en· W187528409 on OpenAlexaff
Paola Flocchini

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of cellular automata · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed systems and fault tolerance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman decontaminationComputer scienceContaminationProcess (computing)VotingReliability (semiconductor)Node (physics)Variety (cybernetics)Field (mathematics)Computer securityDistributed computingWaste managementEngineeringArtificial intelligenceMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The dynamics of majority voting has always been of interest in the area of discrete dynamical systems. In recent years, there has been a growing interest on this process also in the distributed computing field, due to its links to fault-tolerance, reliability, and virus disinfection. In fact, local voting mechanisms are often employed in distributed systems and networks as a decision tool for a variety of applications. In presence of faults, these schemes can trigger a dynamics of contamination: a non-faulty node will exhibit a faulty behavior if the majority of its neighbors is faulty. Some distributed and networked systems employ mechanisms to mend the faults; in these cases a decontamination dynamics is present and interacts with the contamination process. Depending on whether the decontamination is carried out by the majority-voting mechanism already in place or by the use of a team of mobile agents, the decontamination process is called internal or external, respectively. In this paper we focus on the contamination and decontamination processes in majority based systems and we survey the recent results in presence of both internal and external decontamination.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations19
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of cellular automataSame topicDistributed systems and fault toleranceFrench-language works237,207