MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1564917332 · doi:10.5772/13093

Optimization Approaches in Wireless Sensor Networks

2010· book-chapter· en· W1564917332 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInTech eBooks · 2010
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEnergy Efficient Wireless Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsWireless sensor networkComputer scienceEmbedded systemNode (physics)WirelessReliability (semiconductor)EngineeringComputer networkTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Advancements in silicon technology, micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS), wireless communications, and digital electronics have led to the proliferation of wireless sensor networks (WSNs) in a wide variety of application domains including military, health, ecology, environment, industrial automation, civil engineering, and medical. This wide application diversity combined with complex sensor node architectures, functionality requirements, and highly constrained and harsh operating environments makes WSN design very challenging. One critical WSN design challenge involves meeting application requirements such as lifetime, reliability, throughput, delay (responsiveness), etc. for myriad of application domains. Furthermore, WSN applications tend to have competing requirements, which exacerbates design challenges. For example, a high priority security/defense system may have both high responsiveness and long lifetime requirements. The mechanisms needed for high responsiveness typically drain battery life quickly, thus making long lifetime difficult to achieve given limited energy reserves. Commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) sensor nodes have difficulty meeting application requirements due to the generic design traits necessary for wide application applicability. COTS sensor nodes are mass-produced to optimize cost and are not specialized for any particular application. Fortunately, COTS sensor nodes contain tunable parameters (e.g., processor voltage and frequency, sensing frequency, etc.) whose values can be specialized to meet application requirements. However, optimizing these tunable parameters is left to the application designer. Optimization techniques at different design levels (e.g., sensor node hardware and software, data link layer, routing, operating system (OS), etc.) assist designers in meeting application requirements. WSN optimization techniques can be generally categorized as static or dynamic. Static optimizations optimize a WSN at deployment time and remain fixed for the WSN's lifetime. Whereas static optimizations are suitable for stable/predictable applications, static optimizations are inflexible and do not adapt to changing application requirements and environmental stimuli. Dynamic optimizations provide more flexibility by continuously optimizing a WSN/sensor node during runtime, providing better adaptation to changing application requirements and actual environmental stimuli. This chapter introduces WSNs from an optimization perspective and explores optimization strategies employed in WSNs at different design levels to meet application requirements 13 www.intechopen.com

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.386
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.184 · 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