MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143804574 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2005.1557147

Grid resource discovery using small world overlay graphs

2006· article· en· W2143804574 on OpenAlexafffund
Kashif Ali, Samir Datta, Mokhtar Aboelaze

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed and Parallel Computing Systems
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceScalabilityOverlay networkDistributed computingGridOverlayComputationNetwork packetGraphShared resourceGrid computingComputer networkTheoretical computer scienceAlgorithmThe InternetDatabaseWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Computational grids are believed to be an effective and scalable solution to the problem of resource sharing over large, heterogeneous networks of computing devices. Since grids are highly distributed in nature, one of the most challenging problems is the discovery of dynamic resources in a grid. In this paper we use ideas from P2P systems to propose a solution for the problem. Specifically, we classify nodes as consumers and producers, depending on whether they consume or produce more jobs. Our algorithm connects all producer nodes using a overlay network that is a small-world graph (the graph is produced by adding "shortcut" chords to a circle). The consumer nodes hang off the small world graph. The producer nodes are forced to take part in resource cataloging and discovery. This has three distinct advantages - first, it prevents "freeloading" by forcing producers to do useful work; second, it frees the consumers to only do computations; third, the low diameter of the overlay graph ensures that all resources are within a small number of hops. We simulate and evaluate the performance of our algorithm in realistic traffic conditions. We evaluate the performance of our algorithm using metrics like the average time to answer the query, the average number of requests that were dropped and the average number of hops traveled by query packets. Our experiments show that our algorithm performs well with thousands of nodes

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations16
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDistributed and Parallel Computing SystemsFrench-language works237,207