MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107345347 · doi:10.1109/icccn.2007.4317809

Grid Computing on Massively Multi-User Online Platform

2007· article· en· W2107345347 on OpenAlexaff
You-Fu Yu, K. L. Eddie Law

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPeer-to-Peer Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMassively parallelGrid computingScalabilityDistributed computingFlexibility (engineering)GridData-intensive computingEnd-user computingUtility computingSupercomputerArchitectureComputer clusterCloud computingParallel computingOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large-scale online applications such as Massively Multiplayer Online Games (MMOGs) require large amount of computing resources that support many players interacting simultaneously. Cluster computing is the technology mostly used by online game designing firms. Cluster computing is limited by the number and types of computers it can manage, but these computers are usually in the same geographical location. On the other hand, Grid computing offers large-scale high performance distributed computing which connects various types of computing resources on the Internet. In this paper, we design a Grid computing platform called the Massively Multi-user Online Platform (MMOP). The objectives of this proposed design are to offer scalability, flexibility, and simplicity to the development processes of distributed applications. MMOP allows executions of applications based on specified policy rules with dynamic addition of computing resources at run-time. Each application is managed separately, and multiple large-scale applications can share a single computing architecture. An online game has been built to test the functional behavior of the MMOP. From the simulation results, the MMOP has demonstrated as a high performance and scalable computing architecture.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.755
Threshold uncertainty score0.687

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPeer-to-Peer Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207