MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981159287 · doi:10.1109/wd.2012.6402828

Contiki-based IEEE 802.15.4 node's throughput and wireless channel utilization analysis

2012· article· en· W1981159287 on OpenAlexaff
Muhammad Omer Farooq, Thomas Kunz

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEnergy Efficient Wireless Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer networkComputer scienceThroughputWireless sensor networkNode (physics)Carrier sense multiple access with collision avoidanceNetwork packetChannel (broadcasting)Real-time computingWirelessEngineeringTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we analyse the impact of the Contiki Operating System (OS), and its Carrier Sense Multiple Access and Collision Avoidance (CSMA-CA) implementation on an IEEE 802.15.4 node's throughput and wireless channel utilization. The analysis is based on Contiki's Rime networking protocol stack, and its target is to determine an upper bound for the stated metrics. We explain that in Contiki with CSMA-CA as a MAC layer protocol, a node's throughput is limited to 8.1 kbps, at maximum, even without power saving features. In order to maximize a node's transmission capability, we modified Contiki's CSMA-CA implementation. A number of simulations are performed, and it is observed that with our modifications node throughput reaches 45 kbps, at maximum. Simulation results for estimating the channel capacity with our modified CSMA-CA MAC layer protocol show that the average per-node delay is low when the offered data load remains below 100 kbps. For an offered load of 100 kbps, the channel drops almost 20% of packets. Going beyond 100 kbps results in large latencies and significant packet loss. Results presented in this paper can serve as basis for the available bandwidth estimation in Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs), QoS-based routing, and design of congestion control algorithm.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.833
Threshold uncertainty score0.839

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations11
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnergy Efficient Wireless Sensor NetworksFrench-language works237,207