MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998552131 · doi:10.1145/1236360.1236368

Localization in wireless sensor networks

2007· article· en· W1998552131 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIndoor and Outdoor Localization Technologies
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWireless sensor networkComputer scienceRange (aeronautics)WirelessUpper and lower boundsMeasure (data warehouse)SIGNAL (programming language)Real-time computingAlgorithmComputer networkMathematicsTelecommunicationsEngineeringData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A fundamental problem in wireless sensor networks is localization -- the determination of the geographical locations of sensors. Most existing localization algorithms were designed to work well either in networks of static sensors or networks in which all sensors are mobile. In this paper, we propose two localization algorithms, MSL and MSL*, that work well when any number of sensors are static or mobile. MSL and MSL* are range-free algorithms -- they do not require that sensors are equipped with hardware to measure signal strengths, angles of arrival of signals or distances to other sensors. We present simulation results to demonstrate that MSL and MSL* outperform existing algorithms in terms of localization error in very different mobility conditions. MSL* outperforms MSL in most scenarios, but incurs a higher communication cost. MSL outperforms MSL* when there is significant irregularity in the radio range. We also point out some problems with a well known lower bound for the error in any range-free localization algorithm in static sensor networks.

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.

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 score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score0.259

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.196 · 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