MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130633424 · doi:10.1109/dnsr.2004.1344715

Similarities between voice and high speed Internet traffic provisioning

2004· article· en· W2130633424 on OpenAlexaff
R. McGorman, Jalal Almhana, Vartan Choulakian, Zixin Liu, Wissem Jedidi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Traffic and Congestion Control
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MonctonNortel (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProvisioningComputer scienceInternet trafficThe InternetSimilarity (geometry)Traffic generation modelSelf-similarityComputer networkInternet traffic engineeringVoice over IPReal-time computingWorld Wide WebArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper finds similarities between voice traffic and high speed Internet data traffic characteristics from a facility provisioning perspective. Telephone switch traffic measurements are used to show that self-similarity is present in a voice traffic time series, to identify the factor associated with self-similarity, and then to demonstrate that traditional voice traffic provisioning methods remove self-similarity. Voice traffic methods and models are then applied with some modifications to a high speed Internet traffic series for various subscriber aggregations and time scale resolutions. Voice traffic models are found to be applicable to data traffic when it is processed in a similar way to that for voice traffic. The conclusions are based on model fitting results and goodness-of-fit tests for weekday busy hour Internet data traffic loads. The similarities appear to be strong enough that telephone company operations support systems and provisioning methods may require only relatively small modifications and extensions to support both voice and high speed Internet services. The findings can also benefit cable companies offering voice and data services.

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 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.868
Threshold uncertainty score0.418

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNetwork Traffic and Congestion ControlFrench-language works237,207