MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2349219591

Performance Factors of Clock Synchronization in IEEE 1588 Protocol and Analysis of Timestamp Generation

2009· article· en· W2349219591 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

VenueMicrocomputer applications · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Time Synchronization Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTimestampComputer scienceClock synchronizationSynchronization (alternating current)Network Time ProtocolProtocol (science)Real-time computingData synchronizationSystem timeTime synchronizationEmbedded systemComputer networkOperating systemGlobal Positioning SystemWireless sensor network
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the development of network technology,demands from distributed control system on the accuracy and precision of time synchronization have become more and more strict.It has been made a significant progress by IEEE 1588 standards in order to meet the requirements of sub-microsecond class time synchronization in certain fields.In this paper,we do some study on the principle of high-precision time synchronization protocol from IEEE 1588,and then make detail analysis about the accuracy factors of time synchronization as well as the existing problems,and also propose some improvement method.Finally,we do some comparative analysis on the timestamp generations.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.784
Threshold uncertainty score0.509

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.237 · 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