MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122912623 · doi:10.1145/1542245.1542255

Random network coding on the iPhone

2009· article· en· W2122912623 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
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinear network codingUnicastComputer scienceComputer networkCoding (social sciences)WirelessEnergy consumptionWireless networkCellular networkRandom accessMulticastTelecommunicationsNetwork packetEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In multi-hop wireless networks, random network coding represents the general design principle of transmitting random linear combinations of blocks in the same "batch" to downstream relays or receivers. It has been recognized that random network coding in multi-hop wireless networks may improve unicast throughput in scenarios when multiple paths are simultaneously utilized between the source and the destination. However, the computational complexity of random network coding, and its energy consumption implications, may potentially limit its applicability and practicality in mobile devices. In this paper, we present our real-world implementation of random network coding on the Apple iPhone and iPod Touch mobile platforms, and offer an in-depth investigation with respect to the difficulties towards such an implementation, the limitations of the ARM processor and the hardware platform, as well as our hand-tuning efforts to maximize coding performance on the iPhone platform. With our implementation deployed on both the iPhone 3G and the second-generation iPod Touch, we report its coding performance, energy consumption rates, as well as CPU usage with multimedia streaming.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.227 · 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