Event owner lens
Use this record to benchmark whether a comparable event makes the work after the room visible. The score is 47/100, so the next move is to benchmark the weakest pillars before repeating the format.
applied learning or working session agenda analysis
Cmu Safari 2026
This applied learning or working session in Academic / Research / Science shows 20 visible agenda rows from cmu-safari.github.io and scores 47/100: a moderate design signal with incomplete evidence. The clearest public signals sit in Participation Architecture and Future-of-Work Fit; the main limits are Follow Through and Network Design. Visible mechanisms include Participant work, Network design, Learning transfer, and Personalization. The public record does not show follow-up or tracking, so the score should be... A practical reading: For a reader, this is a comparison record more than a model to copy: it reads as an applied learning or working session, with the strongest visible signal in participation architecture and future-of-work fit and the biggest open question around follow through and network design. The practical test is whether the published agenda connects the room to post-event continuation and evidence. This page is an original public-evidence analysis, not a copy of the source agenda or an endorsement of the event. The score places the visible agenda in the moderate design signal band. The strongest visible pillars are Participation Architecture, Future-of-Work Fit, and Personalization; the thinnest visible pillars are Follow Through, Network Design, and Evidence Maturity. Visible mechanisms include Participant work, Network design, Learning transfer, and Personalization. The extracted agenda preview includes 36 visible rows. The most common formats are Workshop, Training, and Presentation; the most common inferred purposes are Skill Building, Co Creation, and Knowledge Transfer.
Eight-pillar fingerprint
Hover any pillar to see what it measures and, where it scored low, what the agenda is missing.
Participation Architecture?77
Participation Architecture - 77/100. Participant work, contribution, interaction, and alternatives to passive broadcast.
Follow Through?5
Follow Through - 5/100. Owners, dates, commitments, progress checks, and accountability after the room.Missing: Add named owners, dates, implementation checkpoints, and a visible post-event continuation path.
Problem Specificity?52
Problem Specificity - 52/100. A clear costly problem, objective, decision, or performance target.
Personalization?65
Personalization - 65/100. Role, path, goal, preparation, or connection tailoring for participants.
Network Design?38
Network Design - 38/100. Structured weak ties, bridge-building, mixers, and relationship persistence.Missing: Replace generic networking blocks with designed introductions, ask-offer exchanges, peer groups, or bridge-building rituals.
Learning Transfer?63
Learning Transfer - 63/100. Applied practice, feedback, workplace use, refreshers, and 30-90 day transfer.
Evidence Maturity?43
Evidence Maturity - 43/100. Baseline, comparison, follow-up, isolation, and attribution confidence.Missing: Add baseline measurement, comparison logic, tracking, or post-event impact reporting so effectiveness is not inferred only from format.
Future-of-Work Fit?70
Future-of-Work Fit - 70/100. Value against time, hybrid reality, accessibility, AI, and meeting load.
Fix the gaps
Field-tested exercises matched to this agenda's weakest pillars, from the exercise library.
Follow Through (5/100)
Exercises that strengthen it: Mental Toughness Workshop • WorkshopBank · 15% Solutions • WorkshopBank · Network Patches
Network Design (38/100)
Exercises that strengthen it: Fun Trust-Building Group Game for Team Connection - Izzat... · Exciting Group Trust Activity for Building Confidence... · PFP: September 2005
Problem Specificity (52/100)
Exercises that strengthen it: 0 - “Two Person Scene” Theory · Challenge Axis - Knowmium: The Un-Training Consultancy · Fist to Five • WorkshopBank
Agenda Preview
The actual agenda we captured. Every block is classified by format and purpose. Open any block to see how we read it; the colored edge shows whether it is participant work, broadcast, logistics, or a showcase.
Room vs wrapper
61 percent of the 36 classified blocks put participants to work; the rest broadcast, show, or handle logistics. That mix is what drives the participation score.
Participant workBroadcastShowcaseLogistics
all eventAbout the Workshop & TutorialWorkshopParticipant work+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisParticipant work is implied by the formatInferred from format
08:00 to 08:30Konstantinos Kanellopoulos & Andreas Kosmas Kakolyris (ETH Zürich) Introduction & WelcomeOpeningOrientation+
Format · BroadcastOpeningFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
10:00 to 10:30☕ Coffee BreakBreakPacing+
Format · LogisticsBreakA pacing or recovery block between sessions.
Evidence basisOutcome inferred from formatInferred from format
11:00 to 11:30Stratos Psomadakis (NTUA) Elastic Translations: A Hardware-Tailored OS Framework for Efficient TLB CoalescingView AbstractAs the ever-increasing memory footprints of modern workloads strain virtual memory hardware, address translation has become a critical...PresentationKnowledge transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
12:00 to 13:30🍽️ LunchMealPacing+
Format · LogisticsMealA pacing block. Can carry unstructured networking, not scored as participant work.
Evidence basisOutcome inferred from formatInferred from format
13:30 to 14:00Konstantinos Kanellopoulos & Konstantinos Sgouras (ETH Zürich) Virtuoso Core DesignPresentationKnowledge transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
14:00 to 14:30Konstantinos Kanellopoulos & Konstantinos Sgouras (ETH Zürich) New FeaturesPresentationKnowledge transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
14:30 to 15:00Andreas Kosmas Kakolyris & Nisa Bostanci (ETH Zürich) Ramulator + VirtuosoPresentationKnowledge transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
all eventHands-On Tutorial BlockWorkshopParticipant work+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisParticipant work is implied by the formatInferred from format
15:00 to 15:30Konstantinos Kanellopoulos (ETH Zürich) Tutorial Part 1: Setup & OverviewTrainingSkill building+
Format · Participant workTrainingGuided skill building where participants practice. Counts as participant work and learning transfer.
Evidence basisParticipant work is implied by the formatInferred from format
15:30 to 16:00Konstantinos Kanellopoulos (ETH Zürich) Tutorial Part 2: Core ConceptsTrainingSkill building+
Format · Participant workTrainingGuided skill building where participants practice. Counts as participant work and learning transfer.
Evidence basisParticipant work is implied by the formatInferred from format
16:00 to 16:30Konstantinos Kanellopoulos (ETH Zürich) Tutorial Part 3: Hands-On WalkthroughWorkshopParticipant work+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisParticipant work is implied by the formatInferred from format
16:30 to 17:00Konstantinos Kanellopoulos (ETH Zürich) Tutorial Part 4: Advanced Features & ExamplesTrainingSkill building+
Format · Participant workTrainingGuided skill building where participants practice. Counts as participant work and learning transfer.
Evidence basisParticipant work is implied by the formatInferred from format
17:00 to 17:30Konstantinos Kanellopoulos (ETH Zürich) Tutorial Part 5: Q&A & Open DiscussionTrainingSkill building+
Format · Participant workTrainingGuided skill building where participants practice. Counts as participant work and learning transfer.
Evidence basisParticipant work is implied by the formatInferred from format
all eventHands-On Demonstration PlanWorkshopParticipant work+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisParticipant work is implied by the formatInferred from format
all eventGuided, step-by-step implementation of each demoDemoShowcase+
Format · Participant workDemoA hands-on or applied walkthrough that invites attendee questions and direct engagement.
Evidence basisSession topic references decisions or metrics; event-level follow-through is not shownRead from source
all eventAbout the Workshop & TutorialWorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
08:00 to 08:30Konstantinos Kanellopoulos & Andreas Kosmas Kakolyris (ETH Zürich) Introduction & WelcomeOpening RemarksOrientation+
Format · BroadcastOpening RemarksFraming or welcome from the stage. Orients the room, not participatory.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
10:00 to 10:30☕ Coffee BreakBreakWellbeing+
Format · LogisticsBreakA pacing or recovery block between sessions.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
11:00 to 11:30Stratos Psomadakis (NTUA) Elastic Translations: A Hardware-Tailored OS Framework for Efficient TLB CoalescingView AbstractAs the ever-increasing memory footprints of modern workloads strain virtual memory hardware, address translation has become a critical performance bottleneck. Modern architectures, such as ARMv8-A and RISC-V, support OS-assisted TLB coalescing to help alleviate this overhead, yet OS support remains lacking. This talk presents Elastic Translations, a hardware-tailored OS memory management framework that enables the OS to effectively and efficiently drive TLB coalescing hardware to tame the address translation overhead.PresentationKnowledge Transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
12:00 to 13:30🍽️ LunchMealWellbeing+
Format · LogisticsMealA pacing block. Can carry unstructured networking, not scored as participant work.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
13:30 to 14:00Konstantinos Kanellopoulos & Konstantinos Sgouras (ETH Zürich) Virtuoso Core DesignUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
14:00 to 14:30Konstantinos Kanellopoulos & Konstantinos Sgouras (ETH Zürich) New FeaturesUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
14:30 to 15:00Andreas Kosmas Kakolyris & Nisa Bostanci (ETH Zürich) Ramulator + VirtuosoUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventHands-On Tutorial BlockWorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
15:00 to 15:30Konstantinos Kanellopoulos (ETH Zürich) Tutorial Part 1: Setup & OverviewTrainingSkill Building+
Format · Participant workTrainingGuided skill building where participants practice. Counts as participant work and learning transfer.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
15:30 to 16:00Konstantinos Kanellopoulos (ETH Zürich) Tutorial Part 2: Core ConceptsTrainingSkill Building+
Format · Participant workTrainingGuided skill building where participants practice. Counts as participant work and learning transfer.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
16:00 to 16:30Konstantinos Kanellopoulos (ETH Zürich) Tutorial Part 3: Hands-On WalkthroughWorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
16:30 to 17:00Konstantinos Kanellopoulos (ETH Zürich) Tutorial Part 4: Advanced Features & ExamplesTrainingSkill Building+
Format · Participant workTrainingGuided skill building where participants practice. Counts as participant work and learning transfer.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
17:00 to 17:30Konstantinos Kanellopoulos (ETH Zürich) Tutorial Part 5: Q&A & Open DiscussionTrainingSkill Building+
Format · Participant workTrainingGuided skill building where participants practice. Counts as participant work and learning transfer.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventBio: Deepanjali Mishra is a Ph.D. student in the Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) Department at Carnegie Mellon University, advised by Prof. Akshitha Sriraman. Her research bridges computer architecture and software systems, demonstrating the importance of that bridge in enabling efficient and sustainable hyperscale data center systems via solutions that span the compute stack. Her research has been recognized with the ASPLOS 2026 WICArch Early-Career Researcher Fellowship, the 2024 Carnegie Institute of Technology Dean's Fellowship, and the 2022 ACM-W Scholarship.DemoShowcase+
Format · Participant workDemoA hands-on or applied walkthrough that invites attendee questions and direct engagement.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventHands-On Demonstration PlanWorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventThe goal of the demo is to provide attendees with a practical, hands-on experience using Virtuoso to prototype and evaluate hardware/OS co-design techniques for memory management.WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventIn this hands-on demo, attendees will use eBPF (extended Berkeley Packet Filter) to instrument and measure the overheads of memory management operations at the OS level. This software-based approach provides a lightweight, production-safe way to observe page faults and other memory management events in real time, without modifying the kernel. Participants will learn how to write and deploy eBPF programs to collect fine-grained performance data and identify bottlenecks in virtual memory management.WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventBuilding on the insights from Part 1, this demo will explore a hardware-accelerated approach to page fault handling. Attendees will use the Virtuoso simulation framework to prototype and evaluate a hardware mechanism that offloads page fault processing from the OS, significantly reducing the overhead identified in the first part. This hands-on session will demonstrate Virtuoso's full workflow, from defining a hardware/OS co-design to running simulations and analyzing performance results.WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventGuided, step-by-step implementation of each demoDemoShowcase+
Format · Participant workDemoA hands-on or applied walkthrough that invites attendee questions and direct engagement.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
The Full Reading
Why It Ranks This Way +
Calibrated from GES design 52/100 and verified 45/100, then capped for no visible follow-up, tracking, or impact mechanism.
Reader Takeaway. For a reader, this is a comparison record more than a model to copy: it reads as an applied learning or working session, with the strongest visible signal in participation architecture and future-of-work fit and the biggest open question around follow through and network design. The practical test is whether the published agenda connects the room to post-event continuation and evidence.
Strongest signals: Participation Architecture, Future-of-Work Fit, and Personalization. Weakest signals: Follow Through, Network Design, and Evidence Maturity.
How This Agenda Could Improve +
- Add named owners, dates, implementation checkpoints, and a visible post-event continuation path.
- Replace generic networking blocks with designed introductions, ask-offer exchanges, peer groups, or bridge-building rituals.
- Add baseline measurement, comparison logic, tracking, or post-event impact reporting so effectiveness is not inferred only from format.
Fastest next move: Add named owners, dated next steps, and a visible continuation path before treating the event as outcome-ready.
Role-Specific Reading +
Sponsor lens
Look beyond exposure. Strong sponsor value would show qualified interaction, problem work, buyer learning, customer evidence, or follow-up. The practical sponsor move is to look for structured introductions, buyer-seller fit, and relationship persistence.
Designer lens
The agenda is useful as a pattern sample from cmu-safari.github.io. Redesign attention should go first to the lowest-scoring pillars; in practice, turn the thinnest agenda blocks into participant work.
Executive lens
Treat the visible agenda as an operating plan. The executive move is to require owners, dates, and evidence before treating the event as strategic. If owners, proof, and follow-through are not visible, the public record does not yet prove strategic movement.
Aggregator lens
Treat the source URL as evidence, not decoration. The data-product move is to label the source boundary clearly before ranking the record before ranking or syndicating the record.
What GES Means Here +
The Gathering Effectiveness Score is a strict 0-100 public-evidence reading of the agenda across eight pillars. It rewards visible participant work, follow-through, transfer, network design, and proof mechanisms more than polish, speaker fame, attendance, or satisfaction.
Visible mechanisms: Participant work, Network design, Learning transfer, Personalization.
Evidence boundary: Scores reflect visible agenda/source evidence and should not be read as proof of causal event impact.
Limitations, Score Caps, and Review Flags +
Limitations
- No visible follow-up, progress monitoring, or longitudinal tracking.
- No baseline measurement is visible.
Score caps
- 42: No visible follow-up, tracking, or impact mechanism.
Review flags
- Fourth-loop score cap: No visible follow-up, tracking, or impact mechanism.
- No source-backed follow-up, validation, baseline, tracking, or impact evidence.
- No tracking, validation, feedback, or impact measurement found in the visible source text.
- Original category was unknown; publication category is inferred.
Is this proof the event worked? +
No. This is a strict public-evidence reading of the agenda. Proof would require baseline, comparison, follow-up, attribution, and impact evidence beyond the listing.
What should a reader inspect first? +
Start with the source URL, then compare the eight pillar scores against the agenda rows. The biggest opportunities usually sit in follow-through, evidence maturity, and participant work.
Why publish weak records? +
Weak records are part of the map. They show where public agendas still describe sessions and speakers more often than outcomes, commitments, transfer, or proof.
How should I use the rows? +
Read the agenda rows as the visible design trace: formats, purposes, and evidence labels show what the public source made inspectable, not everything that happened in the room. This is a source-grounded interpretation of the public agenda record, not a copy of the source, and not an endorsement of the event.
Embed the verified badge +
This record is in the hand-verified gold set. Copy the snippet below to embed the verified badge on your own site.
<a href="https://unitedwetransform.com/events/evt_2026_www_asplos_conference_org_asplos2026_program_index_html_asplos_2026_worksho_03d5ea"><img src="https://unitedwetransform.com/badge/ges-verified.svg" alt="GES verified by United We Transform" height="40"></a>Where To Go Next
Compare this agenda against other Academic / Research / Science events scored on the same eight pillars.