MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2807206830 · doi:10.1016/j.orp.2018.05.001

On slowdown variance as a measure of fairness

2018· article· en· W2807206830 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueOperations Research Perspectives · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Traffic and Congestion Control
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSlowdownMeasure (data warehouse)Computer scienceVariance (accounting)Decoupling (probability)Metric (unit)SuiteRange (aeronautics)EconometricsMathematicsEconomicsData miningPolitical scienceEngineeringLawOperations managementAccounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When considering fairness one must ask two fundamental questions. Firstly, what does it mean to be fair? And secondly, how does one measure that fairness? Different authors have offered different notions and metrics to address these questions. We provide arguments identifying where past metrics fall short, discuss how the underlying motivations differ, and offer our own metric to address these issues. That is, we propose using a system's slowdown variance (SDV) as a measure for its fairness. Advantages of SDV are demonstrated via a suite of simulation experiments which compare a range of established policies under a range of service time distributions. These advantages include a decoupling of fairness from performance, an intuitive distinction between last come first serve and processor sharing, as well as recognition of starvation within shortest remaining processing time.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.498

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.324 · 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