MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965197178 · doi:10.1109/iscc.2008.4625635

Underwater Wireless Hybrid Sensor Networks

2008· article· en· W1965197178 on OpenAlexaff
Kashif Ali, Hossam S. Hassanein

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUnderwater Vehicles and Communication Systems
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnderwater acoustic communicationUnderwaterWireless sensor networkComputer scienceWirelessBandwidth (computing)Channel (broadcasting)Computer networkKey distribution in wireless sensor networksUnderwater acousticsTelecommunicationsWireless network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Underwater sensor networks (USNs) promise innovative and exciting applications, viz. oceanographic data collection, environment monitoring, exploration, and tactical surveillance. Underwater wireless sensor networks (UWSNs) though pose significant research challenges due to the harsh underwater environment. In UWSNs, acoustic is thought to be the only viable means of communication. Underwater wireless acoustic sensor networks (UW-ASNs) present a wireless channel with key challenges, specifically in shallow oceans such as long propagation delays, signal attenuation, man-made and ambient noise, low bandwidth and high transmission energy. We propose a new paradigm for UWSNs, namely underwater wireless hybrid sensor networks (UW-HSNs), which introduce the concept of hybrid communication. UW-HSNs combine the best of both worlds, i.e., the practicality of underwater acoustics and the high-performance of radio communication. The basic idea is to use radio communication for large and/or sustained traffic and traditional acoustic methods for small data volume. Furthermore, we introduce TurtleNet, an architecture based-on UW-HSNs concept, and we propose an asynchronous and distributed routing protocol for TurtleNet. Based on the nodepsilas state, the protocol decides which communication channel to utilize. TurtleNet is simulated using the ns-2 simulator. Simulation results reveal the promising performance for TurtleNet, and hence validate the UW-HSNs concept.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations32
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUnderwater Vehicles and Communication SystemsFrench-language works237,207