MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105522767 · doi:10.1109/iwcmc.2008.160

Effective Bandwidth Evaluation for VoIP Applications in IEEE 802.11 Networks

2008· article· en· W2105522767 on OpenAlexaff
Cristina Ortiz, Jean‐François Frigon, Brunilde Sansò, A. Girard

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWireless Networks and Protocols
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer networkVoice over IPBandwidth (computing)Admission controlQuality of serviceJitterCall Admission ControlNetwork packetWireless networkWirelessTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The convergence of different classes of traffic with different priorities over the wireless network has become a reality. To insure that the users of key applications such as VoIP are satisfied with the service they receive, one must insure that the QoS criteria for these applications, such as delay, jitter or packet loss, are met This in turn means that some form of connection admission control must be used. In this paper, we show how the notion of effective bandwidth that had been previously used in wired systems can be used for CAC in WLAN IEEE 802.11b and 802.11g networks. Effective bandwidth simplifies connection admission since a new application can be accepted on a link whenever its effective bandwidth is lower than the bandwidth still available on the link. The paper presents empirical results obtained by extensive simulations showing that the admission region is nearly linear so that it is possible to design an effective linear CAC policy based solely on the effective bandwidth of a connection. We also propose a more practical method that relates to per packet effective bandwidth.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.275 · 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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWireless Networks and ProtocolsFrench-language works237,207