MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091055510 · doi:10.1007/s11235-013-9814-y

Design and modeling of reliable networks (foreword)

2013· article· en· W2091055510 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

VenueTelecommunication Systems · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Security and Resilience
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurvivabilityComputer scienceMulticastReliability (semiconductor)Resilience (materials science)AnycastProcess (computing)Network planning and designOperations researchComputer networkTelecommunicationsRouting (electronic design automation)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This event, organized by Gdansk University of Technology (PL) in co-operation with Concordia University (CA), and atesio GmbH (DE), was technically co-sponsored by IFIP TC6 WG 6.10 and IEEE.Similar to previous editions, RNDM 2011 provided a very successful discussion forum for people from academia and industry.After a detailed review process, 27 accepted papers written by authors from 23 countries, were organized into seven technical sessions, namely: "Optical Networks Survivability", "Resilience of Multilayer and Overlay Networks", "Models and Algorithms of Survivable Networks Design", "Network Reliability Assessment", "Theory of Network Reliability", "Survivability of Anycast and Multicast Networks", and "Shared Link Risk Groups".

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 score0.805
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.194 · 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