MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074531772 · doi:10.1511/2006.1.5

Where’s the Real Bottleneck in Scientific Computing?

2005· article· en· W2074531772 on OpenAlexaff
Greg Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Scientist · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed and Parallel Computing Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBottleneckCompilerRewritingDebuggingComputer scienceSoftwareParallel computingProgramming languageEmbedded system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

WHEN I FIRST started doing computational science in 1986, a new generation of fast, cheap chips had just ushered in the airrent era of low-cost supercomputers, in which multiple processors work in parallel on a single problem. Suddenly, it seemed as thougli e\'eryone who ttx)k number cmnching seriously was rewriting his or her software to take advantage of these new machines. Sure, it hurt—the compilers that translated programs to iTin on parallel computers were flaky, debugging tools were nonexistent, and thinking

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.065
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.065
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0070.020
Scholarly communication0.0170.050
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0070.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.010

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.253 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations78
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican ScientistSame topicDistributed and Parallel Computing SystemsFrench-language works237,207