MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086169821 · doi:10.1145/1165678.1165680

Publisher FrameWork (PFW)

2006· article· en· W2086169821 on OpenAlexaff
Judith Klein, Drasko Sotirovski

Bibliographic record

VenueACM SIGAda Ada Letters · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed systems and fault tolerance
Canadian institutionsRaytheon Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceAir traffic controlFault toleranceComponent (thermodynamics)Object-oriented programmingSoftwareAviationSoftware engineeringDistributed computingEngineeringOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the lasting challenges in building distributed fault tolerant systems is keeping application code size and complexity down. This can be done by capturing the nuances of distributed computing environment and redundant fault tolerant elements into a common infrastructure layer, thus factoring the code that would otherwise need to be written again and again by each distributed fault tolerant software component. When the application code has many complexities, and Air Traffic Control (ATC) is certainly one such example, achieving this goal becomes paramount.Under a project called En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is developing a replacement for its aging en route assets. At the same time, a foundation is being created for the anticipated future enhancements, driven by the projected increase in air traffic. At the core of the ERAM design is a distributed object oriented (OO) framework called Publisher FrameWork (PFW), which is ERAM's answer to the aforementioned OO challenge. This paper describes the PFW properties, the experiences with it accumulated through the first build of the ERAM program, and its applicability to fault tolerant computing.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Software · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.013

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.207
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

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
GenreSoftware

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

Citations3
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM SIGAda Ada LettersSame topicDistributed systems and fault toleranceFrench-language works237,207