MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019395521 · doi:10.1145/1404880.1404885

Equipment allocation in video-on-demand network deployments

2008· article· en· W2019395521 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

VenueACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing Communications and Applications · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCaching and Content Delivery
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsServerComputer scienceData stripingSoftware deploymentVideo on demandComputer networkResource allocationOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Video-on-Demand (VoD) services are very user-friendly, but also complex and resource demanding. Deployments involve careful design of many mechanisms where content attributes and usage models should be taken into account. We define, and propose a methodology to solve, the VoD Equipment Allocation Problem of determining the number and type of streaming servers with directly attached storage (VoD servers) to install at each potential location in a metropolitan area network topology such that deployment costs are minimized. We develop a cost model for VoD deployments based on streaming, storage and transport costs and train a parametric function that maps the amount of available storage to a worst-case hit ratio. We observe the impact of having to determine the amount of storage and streaming cojointly, and determine the minimum demand required to deploy replicas as well as the average hit ratio at each location. We observe that common video-on-demand server configurations lead to the installation of excessive storage, because a relatively high hit-ratio can be achieved with small amounts of storage so streaming requirements dominate.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.917
Threshold uncertainty score0.968

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.238 · 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