MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115227982 · doi:10.1109/glocom.2003.1258728

How practical is optical packet switching in core networks?

2004· article· en· W2115227982 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Optical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFast packet switchingBurst switchingComputer scienceOptical burst switchingNetwork packetOptical switchTransmission delayComputer networkProcessing delayPacket switchingThroughputPacket analyzerCircuit switchingOptical performance monitoringElectronic engineeringTelecommunicationsEngineeringWavelength-division multiplexingOptoelectronicsMaterials scienceWireless

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A fundamental issue in packet switching is contention resolution, because distinct packets from different input ports can be destined to the same output port at the same time. Optical packet switching is no exception. In this paper, we perform throughput analysis on large optical packet switches under heavy traffic load. We also run simulations to validate our analysis. Results from our performance evaluation indicate that throughput of large optical packet switches is not satisfactory under heavy traffic load. Both analysis and simulations reveal that optical packet switching in core networks would not be practical without a breakthrough in the research area of optical buffering technology.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.645
Threshold uncertainty score0.682

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Optical Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207