MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162194817 · doi:10.1080/15501320500330695

Distributed Dynamic Storage in Wireless Networks

2005· article· en· W2162194817 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

VenueInternational Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOpportunistic and Delay-Tolerant Networks
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDelaunay triangulationSpannerDistributed algorithmSpanning treeIntersection (aeronautics)Wireless networkUnit disk graphGraphConstruct (python library)TriangulationDistributed computingTheoretical computer scienceAlgorithmWirelessMathematicsComputer networkDiscrete mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper assumes a set of identical wireless hosts, each one aware of its location. The network is described by a unit distance graph whose vertices are points on the plane two of which are connected if their distance is at most one. The goal of this paper is to design local distributed solutions that require a constant number of communication rounds, independently of the network size or diameter. This is achieved through a combination of distributed computing and computational complexity tools. Starting with a unit distance graph, the paper shows: 1. How to extract a triangulated planar spanner; 2. Several algorithms are proposed to construct spanning trees of the triangulation. Also, it is described how to construct three spanning trees of the Delaunay triangulation having pairwise empty intersection, with high probability. These algorithms are interesting in their own right, since trees are a popular structure used by many network algorithms; 3. A load balanced distributed storage strategy on top of the trees is presented, that spreads replicas of data stored in the hosts in a way that the difference between the number of replicas stored by any two hosts is small. Each of the algorithms presented is local, and hence so is the final distributed storage solution, obtained by composing all of them. This implies that the solution adapts very quickly, in constant time, to network topology changes. We present a thorough experimental evaluation of each of the algorithms supporting our claims.

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)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.248
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