Peer-to-peer file sharing over wireless mesh networks
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wireless mesh networks are being widely deployed around the world as a mean to provide low-cost access to the Internet. An orthogonal evolution in computer networking has been the rise of peer-to-peer communication. Structured peer-to-peer overlay networks have been used as platform for building large-scale distributed network applications such as file sharing. It is of interest to build those distributed application over wireless mesh networks. Unfortunately, conventional structured P2P overlays are not suitable for direct deployment in a mobile and wireless environment. We argue for a dual-layer mesh network architecture with support from wireless mesh routers for peer-to-peer applications. We demonstrate using extensive simulations that this approach has excellent potential to improve the performance of peer-to-peer applications in a wireless setting; specifically we focus on file sharing but other applications can also be supported by this approach.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 it