MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105908781 · doi:10.1109/pacrim.1993.407331

Improved error recovery in an X.25 packet receiver

2002· article· en· W2105908781 on OpenAlexaff
R. Tervo, S.A. Mwakatapanya

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWireless Networks and Protocols
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChecksumCyclic redundancy checkComputer scienceASCIINetwork packetByteComputer networkRetransmissionError detection and correctionRedundancy (engineering)Decoding methodsBit error rateChannel (broadcasting)AlgorithmComputer hardwareOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conventional X.25 packet protocols demand 100% reception of incoming bits, based on a CRC checksum transmitted with each packet. On the other hand, in a point-to-point radio link, ASCII text messages may still be readable, despite occasional bit errors. An alternative repeat-request protocol is suggested, based on "less than 100%" reception. In such cases, while the totally error-free nature of packet radio is compromised, the channel throughput will improve, as fewer retransmissions will be required. A repeat request will be issued only if received packets fail a number of consistency checks, independently of the transmitted CRC (cyclic redundancy check) byte. An enhanced packet error recovery scheme is also suggested, based on a back-to-front analysis of the received bits, as a means of recovering from bit slips caused by faulty bit synchronization or erroneous bit de-stuffing during decoding.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">&gt;</ETX>

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score0.548

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWireless Networks and ProtocolsFrench-language works237,207