MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Survey of Wireless Communications and Propagation Modeling in Underground Mines

2013· article· en· W1991001411 on OpenAlexaff
Arghavan Emami Forooshani, Shahzad Bashir, David G. Michelson, Sima Noghanian

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAntenna Design and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWirelessComputer scienceNarrowbandWidebandProcess (computing)TelecommunicationsChannel (broadcasting)Communications systemAntenna (radio)Electronic engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mining and mineral exploration play important roles in the global economy. In mining operations, communication systems play vital roles in ensuring personnel safety, enhancing operational efficiency and process optimization. Over the period 1920-2012, this article surveys the evolution of wireless communications in underground mines, the developments of the underlying technology, and progress in understanding and modeling the underground wireless propagation channel. Current and future trends in technology, applications and propagation modeling are also identified. About ninety relevant references have been reviewed that consider: 1) the emergence of technology and applications, 2) analytical, numerical and measurement-based propagation modeling techniques, and 3) implications of the physical environment, antenna placement and radiation characteristics on wireless communication system design. Affected systems include narrowband, wideband/ultra-wideband (UWB) and multiple-antenna systems. The paper concludes by identifying open areas of research.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations224
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Communications Surveys & TutorialsSame topicAntenna Design and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207