MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2548798173 · doi:10.1109/icenco.2012.6487095

Fault-localization comparative study of deploying monitoring trails to achieve survivability in all-optical networks

2012· article· en· W2548798173 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware System Performance and Reliability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurvivabilitySoftware deploymentComputer scienceFocus (optics)Travelling salesman problemFault (geology)Process (computing)Distributed computingAlgorithmComputer networkGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, desirable performance of fault localization process in all-optical networks, by employing the recently introduced Monitoring-Trail (m-trail), is explored and a focus is given to the analysis on using m-trails with established lightpaths. A novel technique based on Geographic Midpoint Technique, an adapted version of the Chinese Postman's Problem (CPP) solution and an adapted version of the Traveling Salesman's Problem (TSP) solution algorithms is introduced. Examples are given to illustrate these techniques with a brief description on its establishment algorithms. A problem definition and an analysis of m-trail deployment to perform fault localization survivability in all-optical networks are presented. An optimized solution of the m-trail deployment procedure in all-optical networks that already established lightpaths is carried out by using FICO Xpress Mosel optimizer version 3.2.3.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.354
Threshold uncertainty score0.462

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.269 · 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