Alfred University finds innovative solution to wireless network upgrade, August 18, 2008
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alfred University finds innovative solution to wireless network upgrade 8/18/08 Students arriving at Alfred University this week (first-year students arrive Wednesday, and returning students, Saturday) will find greatly expanded wireless computing access across campus, thanks to an innovative program completed by the Information Technology Services department."Students want -and expect -wireless access from nearly every point on campus," said Gary Roberts, ITS director.His challenge, and that of his staff, was to find a solution that was affordable, and yet allowed access from nearly every corner of every building on campus.What they did sounds so simple, yet it is so unique a solution it is attracting attention from national IT magazines."We just used inexpensive over-the-counter wireless access points (AP), 'routers' similar to the ones that people purchase for home use," said Roberts.What they also did, however, was upgrade the "firmware" that runs the devices, using an opensource product.What resulted is a system that is both powerful and cost-effective, says Linda Briggs for campustechnology.com(See Linda L Briggs, "Open Source Brings Down Cost of Wireless Rollout," Campus Technology, 8/13/2008, http://www.campustechnolo...)"By replacing the firmware, the university has essentially created access points on steroids, taking consumer-grade APs and beefing them up with free enterprise-level open source firmware," wrote Briggs."The result: inexpensive 802.11gAPs with many of the features and capabilities of a much costlier product.The school's bottom line: Avoiding spending perhaps a quarter of a million dollars on a major wireless upgrade, only to end up with a system that could be obsolete in five years as wireless standards continue to rapidly evolve."Robertsestimates he saved as much as $90,000 by using the novel solution, rather than a more conventional approach.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".