MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004671052 · doi:10.1109/drcn.2007.4762254

Factors affecting the efficiency of Demand-wise Shared Protection

2007· article· en· W2004671052 on OpenAlexaff
Brian Forst, W.D. Grover

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Optical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRedundancy (engineering)Disjoint setsComputer scienceDigital signal processingOn demandNetwork topologyArchitectureDistributed computingNode (physics)Computer networkMathematicsEngineeringComputer hardware

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Demand-wise shared protection (DSP) can be thought of as a form of network-level 1:N APS protection scheme. The concept is to split total demand over multiple disjoint routes between each node pair and use one of the routes for protection. Recently referred to as demand-wise shared protection (DSP), this architecture is receiving renewed interest. Especially in high connectivity networks it would seem to offer the prospect of very low redundancy. In our results and others it is surprising, however, that the savings over 1+1 APS are small even when optimally designed. We have therefore tried to understand and explore the factors that affect the efficiency of DSP in terms of features of network topologies and demand patterns. Through this examination, factors affecting the efficiency of DSP are better understood, providing insights into the applicability of DSP as a protection architecture. One of the main insights is that while a k-way split over disjoint routes seems logically to promise ~1/(k-1) redundancy, this is largely overcome by the statistics of increased route length as k becomes greater than two.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.235
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

Citations10
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Optical Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207