Defining Communication at the Bottom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nanoscale communication is expected to offer unprecedented benefits. However, lack of a precise definition and general framework for nanoscale communication has resulted in limited impact and dissipated effort. The IEEE P1906.1/Draft 1.0 Recommended Practice for Nanoscale and Molecular Communication Framework provides the precise, common definition of nanoscale communication and a standard, general framework. The definition of nanoscale communication must carefully depict the field so that it captures the unique aspects of small-scale physics with respect to communication. Both the definition and framework must be broad enough to cover the scope of cross-disciplinary technologies that may be utilized while simultaneously be precise enough to allow for interoperable and reusable components.The implication for the field is significant. The IEEE P1906.1/ Draft 1.0 Recommended Practice for Nanoscale and Molecular Communication Framework will enable diverse disciplines to have a common language and reference for making lasting contributions. A lasting impact will be possible because others can now build upon these results through rational design and synthesis.
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 | 0.015 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.028 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.013 |
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".