MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002823020 · doi:10.1109/iccnc.2012.6167532

Survivable routing using path criticality

2012· article· en· W2002823020 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

Venue2012 International Conference on Computing, Networking and Communications (ICNC) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware-Defined Networks and 5G
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer networkEqual-cost multi-path routingDistributed computingStatic routingBackupMultipath routingLink-state routing protocolDynamic Source RoutingNetwork topologyCriticalityRobustness (evolution)Routing (electronic design automation)Policy-based routingRouting protocolTopology (electrical circuits)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Network criticality measures the robustness of a network to changes in topology, traffic demand, and faults. Recent research has shown that path selection according to network criticality metrics can lead to improved utilization and reduced blocking in mesh networks. In this paper we investigate the selection of survivable routes within the context of dynamic routing using weighted random-walk path criticality routing (WRW-PCR). To build backup paths for primary routes a shared backup path selection strategy is considered. Each link is characterized by its active bandwidth, backup bandwidth, and available capacity. The WRW-PCR algorithm is used to find paths with less sensitivity to traffic and topology changes. We present simulation results that demonstrate that path criticality routing results in much lower blocking than alternative routing algorithms.

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 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.201 · 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