MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064935713 · doi:10.1002/cpe.1490

Finding order in chaos: a behavior model of the whole grid

2009· article· en· W2064935713 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueConcurrency and Computation Practice and Experience · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed and Parallel Computing Systems
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceGrid computingGridDistributed computingAbstractionSemantic gridSet (abstract data type)Resource (disambiguation)DRMAAScale (ratio)Resource management (computing)Task (project management)Resource allocationKey (lock)Data scienceArtificial intelligenceSystems engineeringComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Over the last decade, grid computing has paved the way for a new level of large‐scale‐distributed systems. However, this new step in distributed computing comes along with a completely new level of complexity. Grid management mechanisms play a key role, and a correct analysis and understanding of the grid behavior is needed. Traditional‐distributed computing management mechanisms analyze each resource separately and adjust specific parameters of each one of them. When trying to adapt the same procedures to grid computing, the vast complexity of the system can complicate this task. But grid complexity could only be a matter of perspective. It is possible to understand the grid behavior as a single system, instead of a set of resources. This abstraction could provide a deeper understanding of the system, describing large‐scale behavior and global events that probably would not be detected while analyzing each resource separately. In this paper a specific methodology is presented and described in order to create a global behavior model of the grid, analyzing it as a single entity. Both real and simulated case studies are also presented, in order to provide a proper validation and illustrate the benefits of this approach. Copyright © 2009 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.923
Threshold uncertainty score0.305

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.291 · 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