MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112434174 · doi:10.1145/1187436.1216586

Integrating coordinated checkpointing and recovery mechanisms into DSM synchronization barriers

2007· article· en· W2112434174 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Journal of Experimental Algorithmics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed systems and fault tolerance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDistributed computingSynchronization (alternating current)Overhead (engineering)Shared memoryAbstractionDistributed shared memoryParallel computingConsistency (knowledge bases)Memory managementComputer networkUniform memory accessOperating systemOverlay

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Distributed shared memory (DSM) creates an abstraction of a physical shared memory that parallel programmers can access. Most recent software DSM systems provide relaxed-memory models that guarantee consistency only at synchronization operations, such as locks and barriers. As the main goal of DSM systems is to provide support for long-term computation-intensive applications, checkpointing and recovery mechanisms are highly desirable. This article presents and evaluates the integration of a coordinated checkpointing mechanism to the barrier primitive that is usually provided with many DSM systems. Our results on some popular benchmarks and a real parallel application show that the overhead introduced during the failure-free execution is often small.

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.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.633
Threshold uncertainty score0.607

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.248 · 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