Proceedings of the 6th ACM international workshop on Modeling analysis and simulation of wireless and mobile systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Welcome to the 6th ACM International Workshop on Modeling, Analysis and Simulation of Wireless and Mobile Systems (MSWiM). MSWiM 2003 is being held jointly with the 9th Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (MobiCom), in San Diego, California.Modeling and analysis of complex wireless and mobile systems often requires good knowledge of the system being modeled. The co-location of MSWiM and MobiCom provides an excellent opportunity for the MSWiM participants to exchange views with experts in Mobile communication systems and extend their knowledge in this growing and important field.It is well known that the success of a workshop such as MSWiM depends heavily on the scientific merit of the accepted papers and the discussion opportunities provided by the workshop. Many people worked very hard to make this workshop a success. The Program Co-Chairs Carla-Fabiana Chiasserini and Hossam Hassanein and the Publicity Co-Chairs Helen Karatza, Mirela Sechi Moretti Annoni Notare, and Luciano Bononi all did an outstanding job to solicit high quality papers. As a consequence, this year we received over 100 submissions, which is a 25% increase compared to MSWiM 2002. The Program Committee Members worked very hard to keep the deadline and to select the most suitable papers. The increased number of submissions to MSWiM 2003 is also an indication of the importance of modelling and simulation in the performance evaluation of wireless and mobile systems. I am convinced that the accepted papers represent an interesting view of the state of the art in the research activities in the field of wireless networks and mobile computing.The Steering Committee Chair, Azzedine Boukerche, has worked very hard in the past few years to establish MSWiM as the main research forum for Modeling, Analysis and Simulation of Wireless and Mobile Systems. I believe that he and his colleagues have succeeded in establishing MSWiM and appreciate their efforts.Our keynote speaker is Prof. Ramesh Rao from University of California, San Diego. Thanks to Prof. Rao for accepting our invitation to be the keynote speaker.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.011 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".