MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126740112 · doi:10.1109/pccc.2011.6108075

Dynamic data allocation with replication in distributed systems

2011· article· en· W2126740112 on OpenAlex
Shahin Kamali, Pedram Ghodsnia, Khuzaima Daudjee

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
TopicDistributed systems and fault tolerance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceReplication (statistics)LocalityOverhead (engineering)Distributed computingFragment (logic)Distributed databaseComputer networkAlgorithmOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of fragment allocation in distributed database systems is to place data fragments at sites so as to minimize the overall data transmission cost incurred to answer queries. We consider the problem of fragment allocation in lazily replicated systems and address both placement and replication issues in an integrated approach. While replication can improve performance via increased locality, excessive replication can incur extra overhead cost to maintain replicas. A comprehensive model that takes into account network topology, fragment correlation, and data access patterns is presented. Based on this model, we propose an algorithm to find near-optimal dynamic allocation solutions. Experimental results show the efficacy of the proposed solution.

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 score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.288

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations12
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDistributed systems and fault toleranceFrench-language works237,207