MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043638109 · doi:10.1109/twc.2006.1638644

Selective relative best scheduling for best-effort downlink packet data

2006· article· en· W2043638109 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

VenueIEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Wireless Network Optimization
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceScheduling (production processes)Telecommunications linkMaximum throughput schedulingDiversity gainNetwork packetExploitFairness measureComputer networkThroughputChannel (broadcasting)Round-robin schedulingReal-time computingDynamic priority schedulingWirelessFadingMathematical optimizationTelecommunicationsMathematicsQuality of service

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A scheduling scheme to compromise between pure opportunistic (PO) and relative best (RB) is proposed for downlink packet-based data transmission. For this, an instantaneous channel gain is factorized into two channel gain components such as short-term and long-term channel gains, in order to exploit individual characteristics in designing the scheduling scheme. Here, selection diversity offered by short-term gains is used to improve fairness compared to the PO, while multiuser diversity by independent spatial user distribution, resulting in distinct long-term gains, is partially used to yield higher throughput than the RB. The proposed scheme is referred to as selective relative best (SRB) and is shown to provide a balance between fairness and throughput of the system

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.871
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.249 · 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