MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067583486 · doi:10.1109/tpds.2008.80

Cooperative Secondary Authorization Recycling

2008· article· en· W2067583486 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

VenueIEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCaching and Content Delivery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceAuthorizationScalabilityServerCacheSoftware deploymentAuthorization certificateComputer networkDistributed computingComputer securityOperating systemPublic-key cryptographyCertificate authority

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As enterprise systems, Grids, and other distributed applications scale up and become increasingly complex, their authorization infrastructures--based predominantly on the request-response paradigm--are facing the challenges of fragility and poor scalability. We propose an approach where each application server recycles previously received authorizations and shares them with other application servers to mask authorization server failures and network delays. This paper presents the design of our cooperative secondary authorization recycling system and its evaluation using simulation and prototype implementation. The results demonstrate that our approach improves the availability and performance of authorization infrastructures. Specifically, by sharing authorizations, the cache hit rate--an indirect metric of availability--can reach 70 percent, even when only 10 percent of authorizations are cached. Depending on the deployment scenario, the average time for authorizing an application request can be reduced by up to a factor of two compared with systems that do not employ cooperation.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.561

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.200 · 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