MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160015478 · doi:10.1109/mcom.2004.1273779

Key technical considerations when using Ethernet solutions in existing ATM and frame relay networks

2004· article· en· W2160015478 on OpenAlexaff
Sonia D. Bot

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Communications Magazine · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Optical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsNortel (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrame RelayComputer networkMetro EthernetCarrier EthernetComputer scienceEthernet over PDHEthernet flow controlConnection-oriented EthernetAsynchronous Transfer ModeATM adaptation layerEthernet over SDHEthernetService providerRelayKey (lock)Frame (networking)Leverage (statistics)TelecommunicationsService (business)BusinessComputer securityNetwork packet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The benefits of using Ethernet in existing ATM and frame relay networks have captured the interest of many service providers and vendors in the WAN industry. As islands of metro Ethernet networks for WAN services are deployed in this newly emerging market, established ATM and frame relay operators are priming themselves to leverage complementary benefits and venture into extended and innovative service offerings, while streamlining infrastructure costs.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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 score0.536
Threshold uncertainty score0.861

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Communications MagazineSame topicAdvanced Optical Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207