MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7097954754

Author manuscript, published in "International Conference on Computing in High Energy and Nuclear Physics (CHEP07), Victoria: Canada (2007)" DOI: 10.1088/1742-6596/119/6/062001 FERMILAB-PUB-07-462-CD DZero Data-Intensive Computing on the Open Science Grid

2008· article· en· W7097954754 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed and Parallel Computing Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrid computingGridSupercomputerQueueJob schedulerScheduling (production processes)High energyNational laboratory
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. High energy physics experiments periodically reprocess data, in order to take advantage of improved understanding of the detector and the data processing code. Between February and May 2007, the DZero experiment has reprocessed a substantial fraction of its dataset. This consists of half a billion events, corresponding to about 100 TB of data, organized in 300,000 files. The activity utilized resources from sites around the world, including a dozen sites participating to the Open Science Grid consortium (OSG). About 1,500 jobs were run every day across the OSG, consuming and producing hundreds of Gigabytes of data. Access to OSG computing and storage resources was coordinated by the SAM-Grid system. This system organized job access to a complex topology of data queues and job scheduling to clusters, using a SAM-Grid to OSG job forwarding infrastructure. For the first time in the lifetime of the experiment, a data intensive production activity was managed on a general purpose grid, such as OSG. This paper describes the implications of using OSG, where all resources are granted following an opportunistic model, the challenges of operating a data intensive activity over such large computing infrastructure, and the lessons learned throughout the project. 1.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Open science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.743
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0100.006
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDistributed and Parallel Computing SystemsFrench-language works237,207