MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972427238 · doi:10.1109/icnsc.2013.6548792

Cocasting and power control for energy efficient information dissemination in WSNs

2013· article· en· W1972427238 on OpenAlexaff
Jacek Ilow, Shreyas Rangappa, Nauman Aslam

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinear network codingComputer networkComputer scienceUnicastWireless sensor networkNetwork packetEfficient energy useRelayNode (physics)Routing protocolPower controlExploitTransmission (telecommunications)Power (physics)TelecommunicationsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper considers energy efficient information dissemination in Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) deploying co-operating nodes which by adjusting their transmission ranges minimize the total transmitted power in the network. Specifically, the design of routing protocols with a single relay node along a data path is proposed for multiple unicast sessions in a network with randomly distributed nodes. The protocols take advantage of topological diversity created by adapting the transmission power and exploit the benefits of network coding in a system where nodes are periodically generating data packets. Energy efficiency of the conventional, store-and-forward, and network coding based relaying schemes is analyzed in different propagation conditions and for various node densities. The best-case improvement in the energy efficiency achievable with network coding over store-and-forward is 25% for two node exchange of data. In WSNs, it is demonstrated through simulations that network coding offers realistically between 11% to 19% energy savings over the store-and-forward strategy. The deployment of the relaying node contributes to the improvement in energy efficiency over direct transmissions in a range of 80%.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.246
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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207