MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2611201989 · doi:10.3390/s17050994

Scalability Issues for Remote Sensing Infrastructure: A Case Study

2017· article· en· W2611201989 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Yang Liu, Sean Picard, Carey Williamson

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCaching and Content Delivery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsSensor webBenchmarkingComputer scienceBottleneckScalabilityThe InternetData stream miningData collectionWireless sensor networkData sharingData scienceWorld Wide WebDatabaseTelecommunicationsComputer networkData miningEmbedded system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For the past decade, a team of University of Calgary researchers has operated a large "sensor Web" to collect, analyze, and share scientific data from remote measurement instruments across northern Canada. This sensor Web receives real-time data streams from over a thousand Internet-connected sensors, with a particular emphasis on environmental data (e.g., space weather, auroral phenomena, atmospheric imaging). Through research collaborations, we had the opportunity to evaluate the performance and scalability of their remote sensing infrastructure. This article reports the lessons learned from our study, which considered both data collection and data dissemination aspects of their system. On the data collection front, we used benchmarking techniques to identify and fix a performance bottleneck in the system's memory management for TCP data streams, while also improving system efficiency on multi-core architectures. On the data dissemination front, we used passive and active network traffic measurements to identify and reduce excessive network traffic from the Web robots and JavaScript techniques used for data sharing. While our results are from one specific sensor Web system, the lessons learned may apply to other scientific Web sites with remote sensing infrastructure.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.597

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicCaching and Content DeliveryFrench-language works237,207