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 OpenAlexafffund
Vincent J. Maccio, Jenell Hogg, Douglas G. Down

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.105
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.105
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.011
Scholarly communication0.0070.015
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOperations Research PerspectivesSame topicNetwork Traffic and Congestion ControlFrench-language works237,207