MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038820425 · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2013.06.015

Gossiping Based Distributed Plan Monitoring

2013· article· en· W2038820425 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

VenueProcedia Computer Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed Control Multi-Agent Systems
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development CanadaConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceGossipDistributed computingPlan (archaeology)Protocol (science)Process (computing)Information sharingReal-time computingOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Joint plan execution is gaining momentum due to its benefits in terms of cost effectiveness and operational agility. In this paper, we introduce a lightweight gossip based multi-agent distributed protocol for plan execution monitoring in a dynamic environment characterized by unreliable communication links and exogenous events. The information obtained from the monitoring process can be used as support for detecting plan deviations and applying corrective measures. The contribution of this paper consists in the elaboration of an agent centric information sharing mechanism that is resilient to adverse changes in the execution environment by exhibiting a high degree of tolerance to communication errors. The distributed monitoring procedure is elaborated along with a relevant case study and experimental results.

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), Scholarly communication
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 score0.914
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0040.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.210 · 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