MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149573515 · doi:10.1002/cpe.872

Performance evaluation of Data Distribution Management strategies

2004· article· en· W2149573515 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

VenueConcurrency and Computation Practice and Experience · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicSimulation Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceBenchmark (surveying)ScalabilityHigh-level architectureDistribution management systemDistributed computingGridVariety (cybernetics)Scheme (mathematics)Service (business)Scale (ratio)Data managementDistribution (mathematics)Service levelData miningDatabaseInteroperabilityArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Data Distribution Management (DDM) is a High Level Architecture/Run‐Time Infrastructure (HLA/RTI) service that manages the distribution of state updates and interaction information in large‐scale distributed simulations and limits and controls the volume of data exchanged during the simulation. In this paper, we describe a mini‐RTI framework that we have developed in an effort to determine the most efficient model for applying the DDM service and the limitations of the scalability of various DDM methods. We study and compare the performance of the following five DDM strategies: two variations of the fixed‐based method, two variations of the dynamics grid‐based scheme and the region‐based method. Due to a lack of accepted benchmarks, we also propose a variety of workloads and scenarios, which we hope will become a standards benchmark within the distributed simulation communities. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score0.231

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.274
GPT teacher head0.521
Teacher spread0.247 · 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