MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2197087742 · doi:10.1002/0471755591.ch2

Understanding the Use of a Campus Wireless Network

2005· other· en· W2197087742 on OpenAlexaffabout
David J. Schwab, Rick Bunt

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCaching and Content Delivery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWireless networkComputer scienceWireless WANComputer networkSoftware deploymentWirelessMunicipal wireless networkCampus networkNetwork packetWireless site surveyWireless distribution systemAuthentication (law)Heterogeneous networkWorld Wide WebWi-Fi arrayComputer securityTelecommunicationsSoftware engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Like many organizations, the University of Saskatchewan is deploying wireless access technology across the organization. Rather than complete coverage we have opted for incremental deployment, with our placement strategy driven by the demands of our users. Analysis of user behaviour is critical to our approach. We present the details of our methodology and results from our analysis to date. Authentication server logs and packet traces were gathered throughout the 2003/04 academic year and were analyzed to answer questions of where, when, how much, and for what our wireless network is used. We compare our current results to earlier measurements in order to show how a wireless network grows and usage changes over time. Such information is applicable to the evaluation of the wireless network design, the validation of simulation models and the planning of future network expansion, on our campus and others.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.008
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.121 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCaching and Content DeliveryFrench-language works237,207