MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985994246 · doi:10.1109/mass.2013.63

Reprogramming over Low Power Link Layer in Wireless Sensor Networks

2013· article· en· W1985994246 on OpenAlexaff
Yi Gao, Chun Chen, Xue Liu, Jiajun Bu, Wei Dong, Xianghua Xu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Harvesting in Wireless Networks
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWireless sensor networkComputer scienceComputer networkLink layerNetwork packetKey distribution in wireless sensor networksEnergy consumptionWirelessWireless networkMobile wireless sensor networkReal-time computingEngineeringTelecommunicationsElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reprogramming over the air is important for maintaining a wireless sensor network. Traditional reprogramming approaches assume always-on link layers. Given the energy limitation of sensor nodes, always-on link layers are often not desired for most sensor network applications. In this paper, we propose ROLP, a novel reprogramming protocol built on a widely used low power link layer in wireless sensor networks. ROLP employs an efficient control packets self-suppression scheme for reliable data transmission. ROLP also employs an adaptively falling asleep scheme based on the neighbor information to reduce the energy consumption. We implement ROLP based on TinyOS and evaluate its performance in two different indoor networks. Compared with the standard reprogramming protocol in TinyOS, ROLP is able to reduce the radio-on time by 57.6% and 39.0% in the two networks. Since radio operations cost most of the energy, these reductions save significant amount of energy and prolong the lifetime of a wireless sensor network.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnergy Harvesting in Wireless NetworksFrench-language works237,207