A survey on communication and data management issues in mobile sensor networks
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Wireless sensor networks (WSNs) which is proposed in the late 1990s have received unprecedented attention, because of their exciting potential applications in military, industrial, and civilian areas (e.g., environmental and habitat monitoring). Although WSNs have become more and more prospective in human life with the development of hardware and communication technologies, there are some natural limitations of WSNs (e.g., network connectivity, network lifetime) due to the static network style in WSNs. Moreover, more and more application scenarios require the sensors in WSNs to be mobile rather than static so as to make traditional applications in WSNs become smarter and enable some new applications. All this induce the mobile wireless sensor networks (MWSNs) which can greatly promote the development and application of WSNs. However, to the best of our knowledge, there is not a comprehensive survey about the communication and data management issues in MWSNs. In this paper,focusing on researching the communication issues and data management issues in MWSNs, we discuss different research methods regarding communication and data management in MWSNs and propose some further open research areas in MWSNs.Copyright © 2011 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it