MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1869097245 · doi:10.1109/ccece.1993.332401

Error rates of Nyquist-shaped QPSK in cochannel interference and fading

2002· article· en· W1869097245 on OpenAlexaff
Norman C. Beaulieu, Adnan Abu‐Dayya

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Wireless Communication Techniques
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFadingPhase-shift keyingMinimum-shift keyingRayleigh fadingBit error rateComputer scienceFading distributionDemodulationInterference (communication)Electronic engineeringModulation (music)KeyingAlgorithmTelecommunicationsPhysicsDecoding methodsChannel (broadcasting)EngineeringAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of linear modulation schemes such as quaternary phase shift keying (QPSK) in wireless communication systems has recently received much attention. This is mainly because linear modulation schemes are more spectrally efficient than constant envelope modulation schemes such as Gaussian minimum shift keying modulation (GMSK). The increasing demand for spectrum resources has also motivated interest in using coherent demodulation. We analyze the performance of QPSK in the presence of cochannel interference. Three approaches that can be used for analysing the cochannel interference are investigated. These are a precise method based on the average probability of error, a sum of sinusoids (sinusoidal) model, and a Gaussian interference model. The system performance is assessed in terms of the average bit error rate. The examples consider the outdoor microcellular fading environment. In this environment, the fading experienced by the interfering signals may be represented by a Rayleigh fading model while the fading experienced by the desired signal may be represented by a Ricean or a Nakagami fading model.>

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.236 · 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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Wireless Communication Techniques→French-language works237,207→