MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2563385979 · doi:10.4230/lipics.opodis.2015.3

Time to Change: On Distributed Computing in Dynamic Networks (Keynote)

2016· article· en· W2563385979 on OpenAlexafffund
Nicola Santoro

Bibliographic record

VenueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed systems and fault tolerance
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceCLARITYFocus (optics)Field (mathematics)Order (exchange)Data scienceDistributed computingNetwork topologyUbiquitous computingHuman–computer interactionComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In highly dynamic networks, topological changes are not anomalies but rather integral part of their nature. Such networks are becoming quite ubiquitous. They include systems where the entities are mobile and communicate without infrastructure (e.g. vehicles, satellites, robots, or pedestrian smartphones): the topology changes as the entities move. They also include systems, such as peer-to-peer networks, where the changes are caused by entities entering and leaving the system, They even include systems where there is no physical mobility at all, such as social networks. A vast literature on these dynamic networks has been produced in many different fields, including distributed computing. The several efforts to survey the status of the research and attempts to clarify and classify models and assumptions, have so far brought more valuable bibliographic data than order and clarity. Goal of this note is to ask questions that might bring author and readers to start to clarify some important research aspects and put some order in a sometimes confusing field. The focus here is entirely on distributed computing, specifically on its deterministic aspects.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.238 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics)Same topicDistributed systems and fault toleranceFrench-language works237,207