MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055319645 · doi:10.1109/mcom.2011.5978422

Leveraging green communications for carbon emission reductions: Techniques, testbeds, and emerging carbon footprint standards

2011· article· en· W2055319645 on OpenAlexafffund
Charles Despins, Fabrice Labeau, Tho Le Ngoc, Richard Labelle, Mohamed Cheriet, Claude Thibeault, François Gagnon, Alberto Leon‐Garcia, Omar Cherkaoui, Bill St. Arnaud, Jacques Mcneill, Yves Lemieux, Mathieu Lemay

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Communications Magazine · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGreen IT and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsEricsson (Canada)Prompt (Canada)Université du Québec à MontréalUniversity of TorontoMcGill UniversityÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinistero dello Sviluppo EconomicoFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
KeywordsCarbon footprintGreenhouse gasGreen computingInformation and Communications TechnologyComputer scienceICTSEnvironmental economicsOrder (exchange)TelecommunicationsCarbon fibersBusinessCloud computingWorld Wide WebEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Green communication systems and, in broader terms, green information and communications technologies have the potential to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. This article provides an overview of two issues related to achieving the full carbon abatement potential of ICT. First, green communications research challenges are discussed, notably as they pertain to networking issues. Various initiatives regarding green ICT testbeds are presented in the same realm in order to validate the "green performance" and functionality of such greener cyber-infrastructure. Second, this article offers a description of ongoing international efforts to standardize methodologies that accurately quantify the carbon abatement potential of ICTs, an essential tool to ensure the economic viability of green ICT in the low carbon economy and carbon credit marketplace of the 21st century.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations77
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Communications MagazineSame topicGreen IT and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207