Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quality of experience (QoE) is an important measure of users’ satisfaction regarding their network-based services, and it is widely employed today to provide a real assessment of the service quality as perceived by the end users. QoE measures can be used to improve application performance, as well as to optimize network resources and reallocate them as needed when the service quality degrades. While quantitative QoE assessments based on network parameters may provide insights into users’ experience, subjective assessments through direct feedback from the users have also gathered interest recently due to their accuracy and interactive nature. In this paper, we propose a framework that can be used to collect real-time QoE feedback through crowdsourcing and forward it to network controllers to enhance streaming routes. We analyze how QoE can be affected by different network conditions, and how different streaming protocols compare against each other when the network parameters change dynamically. We also compare the real-time user feedback to predefined network changes to measure if participants will be able to identify all degradation events, as well as to examine which combination of degradation events are noticeable to the participants. Our aim is to demonstrate that real-time QoE feedback can enhance cloud-based services and can adjust service quality on the basis of real-time, active participants’ interactions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".