MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099112719 · doi:10.1109/glocom.1993.318035

A simplified optical star network using distributed channel controllers

2002· article· en· W2099112719 on OpenAlexaff
M.W. Janoska, T.D. Todd

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Optical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceChannel (broadcasting)Bandwidth (computing)Computer networkAsynchronous communicationQueueStar networkDistributed computingStar (game theory)Set (abstract data type)Channel allocation schemesNetwork topologyRing networkTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the paper, a new network architecture is presented for single-hop passive optical star networks. The objective is to simplify the user stations as much as possible, thus giving an economical design. This is accomplished by using a set of distributed channel controllers, one for each WDM channel. The network will thus be referred to as DCCN (for distributed channel controller network). The channel controllers assist in the operation of the network in a number of ways. In the network, the allocation of bandwidth is hierarchical and is achieved independently on each channel. This simplification decouples system operation into two levels. At the higher level, bandwidth partitioning may be done in a static or dynamic fashion. The lower level determines the dynamic use of slots. Two options for media access are proposed. The first is a centralized approach based upon an "asynchronous request switch" design. The second is much more distributed. Each set of competing stations builds a distributed queue based upon observed requests. Capacity results are presented for the design and compared with other protocols. It is found that the proposed architecture has much higher capacity than in many other networks with similar hardware requirements.>

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Optical Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207