Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM workshop on Future directions in network architecture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is a great pleasure to welcome you all to the ACM SIGCOMM 2004 Workshops!We are pleased to present an outstanding program consisting of four workshops: (1) Future Directions in Network Architecture (FDNA); (2) Network and System Support for Games (NetGames); (3) Practice and Theory of Incentives in Networked Systems (PINS); and (4) Network Troubleshooting: Research, Theory, and Operations Practice Meet Malfunctioning Reality (NetTs).Workshops were first introduced as a part of the ACM SIGCOMM week-long Data Communications Festival in 2003 to enhance the ACM SIGCOMM conference technical program; this is the second year for this effort. In response to the call for proposals, we received 6 workshop proposals, 4 of which were accepted. FDNA, the highly successful workshop from 2003, is repeated for the second year. This is the first year for NetGames, PINS, and NetTs; a key feature of all of these workshops is their outreach to other communities. NetGames -- organized for the first time in conjunction with the ACM SIGCOMM conference -- brings together multimedia and gaming community with networking; PINS (organized in collaboration with ACM SIGecom) crosses the boundaries between economics, game theory, and networking; and NetTs exposes challenges in network operations to networking researchers.Organizing such a diverse set of workshops requires a great deal of effort and organization and I want to thank all the members of the SIGCOMM 2004 organizing committee and several volunteers who made it possible. I would like to thank Craig Partridge, Jennifer Rexford, John Wroclawski, and Jim Kurose for their suggestions and help in soliciting exciting workshop proposals. I also thank the SIGCOMM 2004 organizing committee, and in particular, Raj Yavatkar, Jennifer Rexford, Chris Edmondson-Yurkanan and Joe Touch for all the support and guidance they provided throughout the workshop organization process. The local arrangements for the workshops are a result of efforts of Wu-chang Feng. Prashant Chandra, Andreas Terzis, Marcel Waldvogel, and Allyn Romanow handled the web pages, registration, and publicity for the workshops.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.012 |
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".