MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157382712 · doi:10.1109/icc.2006.255055

Peer-to-Peer Mobility Management for all-IP Networks

2006· article· en· W2157382712 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

Venue2006 IEEE International Conference on Communications · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPeer-to-Peer Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMobility managementComputer networkScalabilityRobustness (evolution)Single point of failureMobility modelFile sharingWireless networkMobile computingDistributed computingWirelessTelecommunicationsThe InternetWorld Wide WebDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the increasing number of wireless devices, the importance of mobility management in future mobile networks is growing. Traditional mobility management approaches are based on client/server paradigms, and suffer from their well-known shortcomings (single point of failure, congestion, bottlenecks). With the success of P2P for file sharing applications, we believe that its benefits can be brought into new mobility management schemes to improve their scalability, robustness, availability, and performance. To the best of our knowledge, this paper is a first attempt to examine the potential of P2P concepts for mobility management. We perform experiments to quantify the performance of the proposed scheme, and compare it to traditional approaches such as Mobile IP.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Open science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.758
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0080.001
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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.267 · 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