MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108112270 · doi:10.1109/wcnc.2005.1424775

Latency analysis of WAP 2.0 for short-lived flows

2005· article· en· W2108112270 on OpenAlexafffund
Humphrey Rutagemwa, Xuemin Shen, J.W. Mark

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Traffic and Congestion Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLatency (audio)Computer scienceNetwork packetFile transferWireless Application ProtocolWirelessMarkov chainComputer networkMarkov processChannel (broadcasting)Transfer (computing)Real-time computingWireless networkParallel computingMathematicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An analytical framework for studying the latency of wireless application protocol (WAP 2.0) over wireless links for short transfers is developed. In particular, a Markov channel model, which approximates both correlated and independent packet losses, is introduced. For a given wireless link and protocol parameters, an explicit mathematical expression, which represents a reasonable estimate of the minimum WAP 2.0 latency in terms of file transfer time, is derived. Simulation results are given to demonstrate the validity of analytical results. It is shown that for large file sizes (>20 KB), WAP 2.0 is more sensitive to bursty packet losses than random packet losses. It is also shown that the latency of WAP 2.0 can be improved by increasing the size of the initial window in a low rate bursty error environment, but degrades in a high rate bursty error environment.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNetwork Traffic and Congestion ControlFrench-language works237,207