MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1885020772 · doi:10.1109/hotos.2001.990086

Supporting hot-swappable components for system software

2005· article· en· W1885020772 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
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware System Performance and Reliability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComponent (thermodynamics)Computer scienceSwap (finance)Component-based software engineeringSoftwareEmbedded systemDistributed computingDependabilityOperating systemSoftware systemSoftware engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary form only given. A hot-swappable component is one that can be replaced with a new or different implementation while the system is running and actively using the component. For example, a component of a TCP/IP protocol stack, when hot-swappable, can be replaced (perhaps to handle new denial-of-service attacks or improve performance), without disturbing existing network connections. The capability to swap components offers a number of potential advantages such as: online upgrades for high availability systems, improved performance due to dynamic adaptability and simplified software structures by allowing distinct policy and implementation options to be implemented in separate components (rather than as a single monolithic component) and dynamically swapped as needed. In order to hot-swap a component, it is necessary to (i) instantiate a replacement component; (ii) establish a quiescent state in which the component is temporarily idle; (iii) transfer state from the old component to the new component; (iv) swap the new component for the old; and (v) deallocate the old component.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.740
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.269
Teacher spread0.252 · 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