MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988551609 · doi:10.1002/net.21453

Deterministic rendezvous in networks: A comprehensive survey

2012· article· en· W1988551609 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

VenueNetworks · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptimization and Search Problems
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRendezvousComputer scienceTask (project management)GraphTerrainUndirected graphTheoretical computer scienceMathematical optimizationOperations researchMathematicsGeographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Two or more mobile entities, called agents or robots, starting at distinct initial positions, have to meet. This task is known in the literature as rendezvous. Among many alternative assumptions that have been used to study the rendezvous problem, two most significantly influence the methodology appropriate for its solution. The first of these assumptions concerns the environment in which the mobile entities navigate: it can be either a terrain in the plane, or a network modeled as an undirected graph. The second assumption concerns the way in which the entities move: it can be either deterministic or randomized. In this article, we survey results on deterministic rendezvous in networks. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. NETWORKS, 2012

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.542

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.240 · 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