MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101819222 · doi:10.1109/icc.2007.308

Peer-to-Peer Vertical Mobility Management

2007· article· en· W2101819222 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIPv6, Mobility, Handover, Networks, Security
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMobility managementComputer networkExploitPeer-to-peerWirelessMobile deviceFile sharingSingle point of failureScheme (mathematics)Wireless networkMobility modelDistributed computingComputer securityTelecommunicationsWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the increasing number of wireless devices, the importance of mobility management in future mobile networks is growing. In addition, the number of access technologies available to those wireless devices is more diversified, leading to further heterogeneity and the need for convergence of mobility management solutions. Furthermore, traditional mobility management solutions, which are based on client/server paradigms, suffer from the shortcoming of such centralized solutions (single point of failure, congestion, bottlenecks). With the initial success of peer-to-peer for file sharing applications, and based on our previous attempt to exploit its benefits by proposing novel horizontal mobility management schemes, we examine in this paper the potential of peer-to-peer for vertical mobility management. We also perform extensive simulations to quantify the performance of our proposed peer-to-peer vertical mobility management scheme.

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.404
Threshold uncertainty score0.949

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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)0.0010.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.231 · 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