MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149508831 · doi:10.1109/imtc.2005.1604594

Measurement of the Effectiveness of Application-Layer Multicasting

2006· article· en· W2149508831 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

Venue2005 IEEE Instrumentationand Measurement Technology Conference Proceedings · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPeer-to-Peer Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMulticastComputer scienceComputer networkIP multicastSource-specific multicastProtocol Independent MulticastXcastPragmatic General MulticastInternet Group Management ProtocolOverlay multicastApplication layerDistributed computingMulticast addressOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multicasting is the data distribution from one sender to a group of receivers. Traditionally multicasting is implemented at network layer, in the way that routers perform membership management, maintain data delivery path, and replicate and forward data. IP Multicast is the most efficient way for group data distribution. However, it has been shown that it is extremely difficult to deploy IP Multicast at a large scale. Therefore an alternative has been proposed to shift multicast support to the application layer. This approach expects end-hosts participating in the application to perform multicast functions. This is application layer multicasting (ALM). This paper proposes a proxy-based single source ALM protocol which targets media streaming applications, where latency is the overlay building metric. A text-based message exchange application is implemented based on this protocol. Some measurements are taken both on the intranet and on the Internet. And some performance data are provided. Finally we concluded our research.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.293
Threshold uncertainty score0.852

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.216 · 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