MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051837689 · doi:10.5555/1109557.1109667

Scalable leader election

2006· article· en· W2051837689 on OpenAlexaff
Valerie King, Jared Saia, Vishal Sanwalani, Erik Vee

Bibliographic record

VenueSymposium on Discrete Algorithms · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed systems and fault tolerance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeader electionScalabilityComputer scienceProtocol (science)Set (abstract data type)Parallel computingLimit (mathematics)Distributed computingComputer networkMathematicsOperating systemProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the leader election problem, there are n processors of which (1 - b)n are good. The problem is to design a distributed protocol to elect a good leader from the set of all processors. In this paper, we present a scalable leader election protocol. Our protocol is scalable in the sense that each good processor sends and processes a number of bits which is only polylogarithmic in n. (We assume no limit on the number of messages sent by bad processors.) For b

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations83
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSymposium on Discrete AlgorithmsSame topicDistributed systems and fault toleranceFrench-language works237,207