MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2949161188 · doi:10.82308/48666

Monitoring distributed virtual worlds

2013· article· en· W2949161188 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Hammad Khan

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPeer-to-Peer Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsMetaverseComputer scienceArchitectureVideo gameVirtual realityMultimediaHuman–computer interactionArtVisual arts

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent years have seen a huge growth in the demand for online virtual worlds. The type of these online systems can range from virtual meeting setups, to a more video game like competitive environment. An equally large number of virtual worlds have been developed to meet this demand, and the competition between these system is very strong. Developers of such systems can benefit from any edge they can get in terms of technical quality of the system or the enjoy ability of the online experience.We propose that a monitoring system designed especially for virtual worlds will be able to provide that `èdge" to the developers. As such, we present, in this Thesis, a flexible real-time monitoring architecture which caters to the specific challenges and requirements of virtual worlds. Handling huge amount of data present in the worlds is dealt by distributing the data gathering process between multiple node. The proposed system modifies the gathered data, into a form more suitable for users to observe in real-time, by filtering it before displaying the final result. We use Mammoth, a massively multiplayer research framework, as the test-bed for a sample implementation of the proposed architecture. We use the results of experiments conducted on this implementation to validate that the system is indeed suitable for real-time monitoring of virtual worlds.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.768
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.003

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.209 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicPeer-to-Peer Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207