MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150687976 · doi:10.1142/s0129626407003149

A TAXONOMY OF TASK SCHEDULING ALGORITHMS IN THE GRID

2007· article· en· W2150687976 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

VenueParallel Processing Letters · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed and Parallel Computing Systems
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDistributed computingFair-share schedulingScheduling (production processes)Two-level schedulingGridGrid computingDynamic priority schedulingArchitectureFixed-priority pre-emptive schedulingRate-monotonic schedulingAlgorithmMathematical optimizationMathematicsComputer networkQuality of service

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One motivation of Grid computing is to aggregate the power of widely distributed resources, and provide non-trivial services to users. To achieve this goal, efficient task scheduling algorithms are essential. However, scheduling algorithms in the Grid present high diversities that need to be classified. In this paper, with the help of an abstract scheduling architecture, some key features of the task scheduling problem in the Grid are discussed, followed by a taxonomy of the scheduling algorithms. Some typical examples are given in each category to present a picture of the current research and help to find new research problems.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.840
Threshold uncertainty score0.550

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.228 · 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