MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129934169 · doi:10.1109/icdcsw.2003.1203671

Scaling server selection using a multi-broker architecture

2004· article· en· W2129934169 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
TopicMobile Agent-Based Network Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of OttawaUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceScalabilityServerServer farmArchitectureSelection (genetic algorithm)Client–server modelReplication (statistics)The InternetSession (web analytics)Distributed computingTask (project management)Computer networkApplication serverSelection algorithmOperating systemWorld Wide WebEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Server replication is a common approach to improving the scalability of a service on the Internet. For this approach, the task of finding an appropriate server from a set of replicas is a critical issue. We have proposed in a previous work an architecture where a broker is used to provide server selection on a per session basis. When the number of servers and/or the number of clients becomes large, a single broker may not have sufficient capacity to handle the load. An extended architecture based on the replication of brokers is therefore considered. We first discuss alternative organizations that support access to multiple brokers and the needed cooperation between brokers in order to achieve server selection effectively. We then propose a server selection policy for our multiple broker architecture and evaluate its performance by simulation.

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 score0.441
Threshold uncertainty score0.487

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations3
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMobile Agent-Based Network ManagementFrench-language works237,207