MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Visualizing systems and software performance - Report on the GI-Dagstuhl seminar for young researchers, July 9-13, 2018

2018· article· en· W2895516911 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware System Performance and Reliability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceVisualizationDebuggingData scienceSet (abstract data type)Cloud computingData setSoftwareScale (ratio)Software visualizationData visualizationSoftware engineeringSoftware systemData miningOperating systemComponent-based software engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This GI-Dagstuhl seminar addressed the problem of visualizing performance-related data of systems and the software that they run. Due to the scale of performance-related data and the open-ended nature of analyzing it, visualization is often the only feasible way to comprehend, improve, and debug the performance behaviour of systems. The rise of cloud and big data systems, and the rapidly growing scale of the performance-related data that they generate, have led to an increased need for visualization of such data. However, the research communities behind data visualization, performance engineering, and high-performance computing are largely disjunct. The goal of this seminar was to bring together young researchers from these research areas to identify cross-community collaboration and to set the path for long-lasting collaborations towards rich and effective visualizations of performance-related data.

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)0.004
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.313
Threshold uncertainty score0.715

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.263 · 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