MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136741256 · doi:10.1109/etfa.2006.355390

Re-evaluating Event-Triggered and Time-Triggered Systems

2006· article· en· W2136741256 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
TopicPetri Nets in System Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDependabilityComputer scienceProtocol (science)Event (particle physics)Communications protocolDistributed computingReliability engineeringComputer networkEngineeringSoftware engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Industrial control system design is increasingly adopting object oriented (OO) approaches. These approaches use an event-triggered communication model where communication is triggered by the occurrence of a significant event. Traditional low-level control systems for safety-critical applications use a different approach, namely time-triggered. The truth is that both event-triggered and time-triggered protocols have their advantages. Time-triggered protocols are dependable and event-triggered protocols are more responsive. Safety-critical systems demand dependability and as a result, time-triggered protocols have been used to date. Promising new findings indicate that an event-triggered protocol can be both responsive and dependable: a first in safety-critical control systems. This paper contrasts the two existing protocol paradigms and evaluation methodologies. A new protocol and new evaluation methodology are suggested that meet the stringent requirements of a safety-critical system. Initial findings are reported that indicate this to be a promising new direction.

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)0.002
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 score0.861
Threshold uncertainty score0.756

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations13
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPetri Nets in System ModelingFrench-language works237,207