MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963538514 · doi:10.1109/jsyst.2013.2260939

Priority- and Delay-Aware Medium Access for Wireless Sensor Networks in the Smart Grid

2013· article· en· W1963538514 on OpenAlexaff
Irfan Al‐Anbagi, Melike Erol‐Kantarci, Hussein T. Mouftah

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Systems Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEnergy Efficient Wireless Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSmart gridComputer scienceComputer networkQuality of serviceWirelessReal-time computingDistributed computingEngineeringTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Monitoring smart-grid assets in a timely manner is highly desired for emerging smart-grid applications such as transformer monitoring, capacitor bank control, plug-in hybrid-electric-vehicle load management, and power quality assessment. Wireless sensor and actor networks (WSANs) are anticipated to be widely utilized in a wide range of smart-grid applications due to their numerous advantages along with their successful adoption in various critical areas including military and health. For resource-constrained WSANs, transmitting delay-critical data from smart-grid assets calls for data prioritization and delay responsiveness. In this paper, we introduce two medium-access approaches, namely, delay-responsive cross-layer (DRX) data transmission and fair and delay-aware cross-layer (FDRX) data transmission, which aim to address the delay and service requirements of smart grids. DRX is based on delay-estimation and data-prioritization steps that are performed by the application layer, in addition to the MAC layer parameters responding to the delay requirements of the smart-grid application and the network condition. On the other hand, FDRX incorporates fairness into DRX by preventing a few nodes from dominating the communication channel. We provide a comprehensive performance evaluation of those approaches. We show that DRX reduces the end-to-end delay while FDRX has lower collision rate compared with DRX. We outline the tradeoffs regarding these approaches and draw future research directions for robust communication protocols for smart-grid monitoring applications.

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)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.255
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

Citations72
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Systems JournalSame topicEnergy Efficient Wireless Sensor NetworksFrench-language works237,207