MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166489256 · doi:10.1109/pccc.1993.344484

Measurement of parallelism in data communications protocol software

2002· article· en· W2166489256 on OpenAlexafffund
Shikharesh Majumdar, C.M. Woodside, Donald G. Bailey

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed and Parallel Computing Systems
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaInstituto de Telecomunicações
KeywordsComputer scienceSpeedupProtocol (science)Parallel computingSoftwareParallelism (grammar)Data parallelismOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors report on an experimental investigation of a parallel implementation of OSI protocol software which, unlike a single application, is a continuous flow system in which the program runs forever. An important attribute of parallel jobs, the average parallelism measure is extended to the domain of continuous flow systems, using the notion of the total rate of work. Protocol execution is important because it is known to have a significant impact on the overall performance of distributed systems. Experiments were performed on a parallel protocol implementation to measure the impact of the average and distribution of message size, the transport protocol data unit (TPDU) size, the flow control window size and the number of processors on parallelism and speedup. They indicate that parallelism and speedup depend more strongly on the design of the software and on its operating environment than on the protocol parameters.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">&gt;</ETX>

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)0.001
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 score0.841
Threshold uncertainty score0.783

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0040.001
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 head0.195
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.130 · 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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDistributed and Parallel Computing SystemsFrench-language works237,207