MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044165776 · doi:10.1002/nem.581

Customer‐managed end‐to‐end lightpath provisioning

2005· article· en· W2044165776 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Network Management · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Optical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsCanarieUniversity of OttawaCommunications Research Centre Canada
FundersCanarie
KeywordsPeeringComputer scienceComputer networkProvisioningQuality of serviceBandwidth (computing)TelecommunicationsThe InternetWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Customer‐owned and managed optical networks bring new cost‐saving benefits. Two types of such networks are becoming widely used: metro dark fiber networks and long‐haul leased wavelength networks. Customers may invoke a special QoS mechanism where end‐to‐end (E2E) lightpaths are dynamically established across multiple independently managed customer domains. The cost of bandwidth is substantially reduced since it largely becomes a capital cost rather than an ongoing service charge. Customers can optimize the overall resource consumption by utilizing resources from different suppliers. Remote peering and transit reduce the Internet connectivity cost. Bandwidth and quality of service are guaranteed because customers directly peer with each other using transport networks. An architecture for a customer‐managed E2E lightpath provisioning system is presented. Integration with Grid applications is discussed and a prototype demonstration is described. Copyright © 2005 Crown in the right of Canada. Published by 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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.680

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.233 · 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