Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fixed-rate and rateless channel codes are generally treated separately in the related research literature and so, a novice in the field inevitably gets the impression that these channel codes are unrelated. By contrast, in this treatise, we endeavor to further develop a link between the traditional fixed-rate codes and the recently developed rateless codes by delving into their underlying attributes. This joint treatment is beneficial for two principal reasons. First, it facilitates the task of researchers and practitioners, who might be familiar with fixed-rate codes and would like to jump-start their understanding of the recently developed concepts in the rateless reality. Second, it provides grounds for extending the use of the well-understood code-design tools - originally contrived for fixed-rate codes - to the realm of rateless codes. Indeed, these versatile tools proved to be vital in the design of diverse fixed-rate-coded communications systems, and thus our hope is that they will further elucidate the associated performance ramifications of the rateless coded schemes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".