MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105801066 · doi:10.1109/dmcc.1991.633072

Resource Management in a Large Reconfigurable Transputer-based System

2005· article· en· W2105801066 on OpenAlexaff
H.V. Sreekantaswamy, Nahum Goldstein, Alan Wagner, Samuel T. Chanson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed and Parallel Computing Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransputerComputer scienceCompilerComponent (thermodynamics)Distributed computingTask (project management)Parameterized complexityProcess (computing)Node (physics)Resource (disambiguation)Parallel computingArchitectureComputer architectureProgramming languageComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes two of the intijor components of TIPS, a Transputer-based Iiirteractive Parallelizing System, under development at UBC. The system runs on a 74 node transpuier system iiilercorinectcd by crossbar switches with inulliple liiihs to ike host, a SUN-4. It uses Trollaus with the Logical Syslems C compiler. The first component described is TMRP, a topology independent mapping facility. TMAP’s objective is to automate the mapping process, and muhe it independent from changes an the underlying architecture. It integrates two large pieces of soft,ware, Trollivs and Prep-p. We describe its design and discuss specific problems in trying to achieve a machine iudependent environment. The second com.poiient described is TRES, a higher level reso’urce managernelit facility. TRES is based on parameterized models of coniputation which are used 20 predict perforni.nnce and optimize the use of machine resources. The user need only specify the model (i.e. prograinmin,g paradigm) and the computational task to be performed. TRES determines the optimal topology and number of processors to use. This inforniation is used by the TMAP system.

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 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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.530

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDistributed and Parallel Computing SystemsFrench-language works237,207