Localization in terrestrial and underwater sensor‐based m2m communication networks: architecture,classification and challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Localizing machine‐type communication (MTC) devices or sensors is becoming important because of the increasing popularity of machine‐to‐machine (M2M) communication networks for location‐based applications. These include such as health monitoring, rescue operations, vehicle tracking, and wildfire monitoring. Moreover, efficient localization approaches for sensor‐based MTC devices reduce the localization error and energy consumption of MTC devices. Because sensors are used as an integral part of M2M communication networks and have achieved popularity in underwater applications, research is being conducted on sensor localization in both underwater and terrestrial M2M networks. Major challenges in designing underwater localization techniques are the lack of good radio signal propagation in underwater, sensor mobility management, and ensuring network coverage in 3D underwater M2M networks. Similarly, predicting the mobility pattern of MTC devices, trading‐off energy consumption and location accuracy pose great design challenges for terrestrial localization techniques. This article presents a comprehensive survey on the current state‐of‐the‐art research on both terrestrial and underwater localization approaches for sensor‐based MTC devices. It also classifies localization approaches based on several factors, identifies their limitations with potential solutions, and compares them. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".