MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060118880 · doi:10.1109/imtc.2005.1604540

Modeling Software Driven Power Consumption

2006· article· en· W2060118880 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

Venue2005 IEEE Instrumentationand Measurement Technology Conference Proceedings · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsCustom Security Industries (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSoftwarePower consumptionDissipationPower (physics)Embedded systemEmbedded softwareSoftware designReliability engineeringSoftware developmentEngineeringOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Power management issues are a major factor that threatens to curtail the progress of Moore's law in the 21st century[1][2]. Techniques to calculate and optimize the power consumption of hardware components are well known and understood, yet there exists no formal technique for modeling the effect of running software on the power dissipation for an arbitrary system. System designers have been forced to over design systems based on worst case estimates, or make design changes based on empirical measurements after the hardware and software is complete. Since there exists no formal method for modeling how software affects power dissipation, there is no way to optimize the software to minimize power consumption. This paper demonstrates a formal approach towards establishing a power consumption model for any processor running on an arbitrary target. Power consumption models are developed and tested for three DSPs with radically different internal architecture through the use of modeling, measurement, and statistical techniques.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.783
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
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.215 · 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