MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2273888011 · doi:10.1007/s13675-015-0059-2

Models for video-on-demand scheduling with costs

2016· article· en· W2273888011 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

VenueEURO Journal on Computational Optimization · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptimization and Search Problems
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceVideo on demandFlexibility (engineering)ServerScheduling (production processes)On demandService providerBandwidth (computing)Duration (music)Computer networkService (business)MultimediaOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Video-on-demand, which provides digital content as needed, supplies flexibility for the users but presents reactive challenges for the provider, as the peaks and troughs in demand lead to an inconsistent requirement of resources. The cost of keeping servers primed for demand that may not appear must be balanced against the cost of frustrating users who must wait for service. This VoD problem is a bi-objective optimization problem, minimizing cost to the provider and delay for the user. Mindful of real-world applications, we introduce a model that handles tasks of differing size (bandwidth) or value by assigning weights to these tasks, and combining the weight with the duration. In this way, we can account for differentiated tasks, in particular, premium users and variable sized tasks. We also extend our approach to account for multiple tasks on each machine.

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 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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score0.465

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.242 · 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