MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2786533309 · doi:10.14459/2018md1428538

A Case Study for a New Invasive Extension of Intel’s Threading Building Blocks

2018· article· en· W2786533309 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

VenueOpen Research Exeter (University of Exeter) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftDurham UniversityEuropean Commission
KeywordsComputer scienceParallel computingConcurrencyExploitThreading (protein sequence)Code (set theory)Extension (predicate logic)Rank (graph theory)Node (physics)Multi-core processorProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study codes deploying multiple MPI ranks to one node where
\neach rank is parallelised with TBB. A static assignment of cores to
\nranks here is disadvantageous if the load is not perfectly balanced,
\nthe runtime is subject to fluctuations or one MPI rank runs through
\nphases with low concurrency. We propose an extension to TBB
\nwhere developers manually annotate which code parts could exploit
\nfurther cores. The cores are then dynamically associated with
\nranks. Our approach is decentralised, lightweight and minimally
\ninvasive w.r.t. code modifications. Some brief performance studies
\nsuggest that a flexible, permanently changing assignment of cores
\nto compute ranks can outperform a static distribution, while greedily
\nhaggling over cores throughout a simulation might perform
\neven better.

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)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.644
Threshold uncertainty score0.580

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.003
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 head0.195
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.201 · 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