MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124210807 · doi:10.1145/353171.353174

Object-oriented real-time concurrency

2000· article· en· W2124210807 on OpenAlexaff
Peter A. Buhr, Ashif S. Harji, Philipp E. Lim, Jiongxiong Chen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReal-Time Systems Scheduling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceConcurrencyObject (grammar)Concurrency controlObject-oriented programmingProgramming languageArtificial intelligenceDatabase transaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The primary goal of a real-time system is predictability. Achieving this goal requires all levels of the system to work in concert to provide fixed worst-case execution-times. Un-fortunately, many real-time systems are overly restrictive, providing only ad-hoc scheduling facilities and basic concurrent functionality. Ad-hoc scheduling makes developing, verifying, and maintaining a real-time system extremely difficult and time consuming. Basic concurrent functionality forces programmers to develop complex concurrent programs without the aid of high-level concurrency features.Encouraging the use of sophisticated real-time theory and methodology, in conjunction with high-level concurrency features, requires flexibility and extensibility. Giving real-time programmers access to the underlying system data-structures makes it possible to interact with the system to incorporate new ideas and fine-tune specific applications. This paper explores this approach by examining its effect on a selection of crucial real-time issues: real-time monitors, timeouts, dynamic-priority scheduling and basic priority inheritance. The approach is implemented in μC++.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations6
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReal-Time Systems SchedulingFrench-language works237,207