MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1572859432 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2015.7129419

Performance of mobile wireless sensor network communication with 6LoWPAN

2015· article· en· W1572859432 on OpenAlexaff
Weiqi Zhang, Mohammadreza Yavari, Bradford G. Nickerson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEnergy Efficient Wireless Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer networkPacket lossComputer scienceWireless sensor network6LoWPANTestbedMobile wireless sensor networkNetwork packetKey distribution in wireless sensor networksReal-time computingRouting protocolWireless networkWirelessIPv6TelecommunicationsThe InternetOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores IPv6 in mobile wireless sensor networks (WSNs). An indoor WSN mobile sensor network testbed of length 24m was built and used for mobile WSN testing. The test network enabled the use of one or two moving nodes and six stationary nodes. A Java based web application called WSNWeb was implemented that displays and records real-time route topology changes and received sensor data. We created 65 test cases with one or two moving nodes, with variable velocities, routing table update periods (RTUPs) and data packet transmission rates. The effect of these parameters on quality of service was measured in terms of packet loss and on time packet loss (OTPL), a novel quality of service metric introduced in this paper. Results indicate that 6LoWPAN can accommodate communication with acceptable packet loss among nodes moving at a walking pace with data transmission frequencies up to 10 Hz and a RTUP as fast as 0.6 s. The highest observed packet loss and OTPL was 2.97% and 0.87%, respectively.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnergy Efficient Wireless Sensor NetworksFrench-language works237,207