MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158814943 · doi:10.1109/mcom.2002.1106157

Quality-of-service mechanisms in IP-over-WDM networks

2002· article· en· W2158814943 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

VenueIEEE Communications Magazine · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Optical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer networkComputer scienceQuality of serviceOptical IP SwitchingOptical burst switchingProvisioningNetwork packetWavelength-division multiplexingPacket switchingBandwidth (computing)TelecommunicationsOptical performance monitoringInternet ProtocolThe InternetWavelength

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Classical approaches to QoS provisioning in IP networks are difficult to apply in all-optical networks. This is mainly because there is no optical counterpart to the store-and-forward model that mandates the use of buffers for queuing packets during contention for bandwidth in electronic packet switches. Since plain IP assumes a best effort service model, there is a need to devise mechanisms for QoS provisioning in IP over wavelength-division multiplexing networks. Such mechanisms must consider the physical characteristics and limitations of the optical domain. This article presents a classification and survey of proposals for QoS provisioning and enforcement in IP-over-WDM networks. The different QoS proposals surveyed cover three major optical switching methods: wavelength routing, optical packet switching, and optical burst switching.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.814
Threshold uncertainty score0.715

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.239 · 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