MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039123032 · doi:10.1109/cgc.2013.23

An Energy Perspective of Multimedia Streaming Systems

2013· article· en· W2039123032 on OpenAlexaff
Yongxin Liu, Mea Wang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPeer-to-Peer Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRouterComputer networkEfficient energy useIdleUnderlayProtocol (science)Power (physics)Real Time Streaming ProtocolPeer-to-peerMultimediaThe InternetTelecommunicationsWorld Wide WebElectrical engineeringEngineeringOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The demand for multimedia streaming is growing at a phenomenal rate, and data-centre-empowered streaming services are becoming more common nowadays. To better accommodate the demand, the computing power and networking components in data centres are being upgraded regularly, leading to higher energy bills. Many studies have been conducted around reducing the power consumed by data centres, but very little attention has been paid to the data transmissions and the power consumed by the entire system, from the streaming source to the end-user devices. In this paper, we are interested in the power efficiency of multimedia streaming system as a whole. We take on the analysis in three directions: traffic imposed by different streaming protocols, underlay physical network structure, and the network infrastructure (data centre vs. Peer-to-Peer). Three main conclusions drawn from the study are: (1) very insignificant power savings can be achieved by tuning the streaming protocol, router connectivity, or the network infrastructure, (2) significant power savings can be achieved through reducing the idle power of routers and end-user devices, and (3) the energy efficiency of the end-user devices determines whether the Peer-to-Peer (P2P) infrastructure can be a green alternative for data-centre-empowered streaming.

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 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 score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.956

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPeer-to-Peer Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207