MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117611177 · doi:10.1109/cnsr.2006.21

Cartesian Core Routing and Cartesian Border Gateway Design

2006· article· en· W2117611177 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Packet Processing and Optimization
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRouting tableComputer scienceComputer networkStatic routingEnhanced Interior Gateway Routing ProtocolPolicy-based routingDistributed computingDynamic Source RoutingBorder Gateway ProtocolRouting domainRouting (electronic design automation)Interior gateway protocolCartesian coordinate systemRouting protocolMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cartesian routing is an alternative to existing routing techniques. Its basic principle is that the network is topologically dependent instead of routing table dependent. Cartesian routing does not use routing tables, so the routing table searching time is eliminated. Cartesian core routing (CCR) was proposed to replace BGP and become the backbone routing protocol without influencing network end users. To achieve this purpose, a new type of router called the cartesian border gateway is designed to connect the CCR network and autonomous systems (AS). In this paper, cartesian core routing and cartesian border gateway are discussed.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.848
Threshold uncertainty score0.407

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.225 · 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