MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2275350766 · doi:10.1109/cjece.2015.2469597

A Fair-Rank Ant Colony Algorithm in Distributed Mass Storage System

2015· article· en· W2275350766 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed and Parallel Computing Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDistributed computingScheduling (production processes)Ant colony optimization algorithmsAlgorithmComputer data storageMathematical optimizationOperating systemMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In general, a distributed mass storage system is composed of a large number of computing nodes and storage nodes, allowing users to access resources transparently, without knowing where the resources are physically located. For every storage request, the storage system scheduler chooses several storage nodes from the entire storage system in order to organize a substorage system. This kind of scheduling is an NP-hard problem; to achieve the storage system's promising potential, this paper proposes a virtual subsystem quality of service scheduling model and a fair-rank ant colony algorithm. The algorithm provides special incentives to the scheduling results that include new nodes, so the new nodes will have more opportunities to participate in the scheduling system. Tests show that this algorithm performs better in the fairness and load balance than the ant colony algorithm.

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)0.000
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 score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score0.655

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.170 · 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