MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007082708 · doi:10.1002/ett.1168

E‐model based comparison of multiple description coding and layered coding in packet networks

2007· article· en· W2007082708 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

VenueEuropean Transactions on Telecommunications · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutomatic repeat requestNetwork packetHybrid automatic repeat requestPacket lossGo-Back-N ARQComputer scienceCoding (social sciences)Selective Repeat ARQComputer networkReal-time computingAlgorithmMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We examine the performance of multiple description coding (MDC) with and without the use of automatic repeat request (ARQ) protocols for packet network communication, in comparison with layered coding (LC). The rate‐distortion lower bound of MDC and LC are incorporated into an E‐model based performance measure, which accounts for the additional costs of excess rates and delay incurred from using ARQ. The results show that the relative merits of the schemes depend on the values of the packet loss rates and round‐trip‐time (RTT). LC is superior for small RTT and unaided MDC is superior for large RTT. For moderate RTT, LC is preferred for small packet loss rates and MDC aided by ARQ is preferred for large packet loss rates. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 score0.906
Threshold uncertainty score0.744

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.220 · 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