MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2512379690 · doi:10.1109/mcom.2016.7537171

Communications, caching, and computing for content-centric mobile networks: part 1 [guest editorial]

2016· article· en· W2512379690 on OpenAlexaff
Meixia Tao, Wei Yu, Wei Tan, Sumit Roy

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Communications Magazine · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCaching and Content Delivery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCellular networkComputer networkMobile telephonyCellular trafficMobile broadbandMobile phoneMobile computingBase stationTelecommunicationsMobile radioWireless

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The driving forces behind the exponential growth in mobile cellular network traffic have fundamentally shifted from the steady increase in demand for conventional "connection-centric" communications, such as phone calls and text messages, to the explosion of "content- centric" communications, such as video streaming and content sharing. The Cisco Visual Networking Index projects that video traffic will amount to 72 percent of global mobile data traffic by 2019. The mobile cellular network architectures of today are, however, still designed with a connection-centric communication mindset. Moreover, the myriad technological advances proposed for beyond fourth generation (4G) and 5G mobile networks still mostly focus on capacity increase, which is fundamentally constrained by the limited radio spectrum resources as well as the diminishing investment efficiency for operators, and therefore will always lag behind the growth rate of mobile traffic. It can be argued that the logjam in cellular networks cannot be addressed by improving connection capability alone, but instead must be tackled by fundamentally addressing the underlying ineffectiveness of the current communication architecture for massive content delivery.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.710

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Communications MagazineSame topicCaching and Content DeliveryFrench-language works237,207