MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999429894 · doi:10.1117/12.482435

<title>Competitive game theoretic optimal routing in optical networks</title>

2002· article· en· W1999429894 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

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Optical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer networkProvisioningService providerComputer scienceGame theoryProfit (economics)Bandwidth (computing)The InternetBandwidth allocationTelecommunications serviceProfitability indexDifferentiated servicesTelecommunicationsQuality of serviceService (business)BusinessMicroeconomicsEconomicsWorld Wide WebMarketingFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Optical transport service providers need control and optimization strategies for wavelength management, network provisioning, restoration and protection, allowing them to define and deploy new services and maintain competitiveness. In this paper, we investigate a game theory based model for wavelength and flow assignment in multi wavelength optical networks, consisting of several backbone long-haul optical network transport service providers (TSPs) who are offering their services -in terms of bandwidth- to Internet service providers (ISPs). The ISPs act as brokers or agents between the TSP and end user. The agent (ISP) buys services (bandwidth) from the TSP. The TSPs compete among themselves to sell their services and maintain profitability. We present a case study, demonstrating the impact of different bandwidth broker demands on the supplier's profit and the price paid by the network broker.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.198 · 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