MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998914666 · doi:10.1504/ijsnet.2008.019252

Efficient aggregation using first hop selection in WSNs

2008· article· en· W1998914666 on OpenAlexafffund
Shoudong Zou, Ioanis Nikolaidis, Janelle Harms

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sensor Networks · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEnergy Efficient Wireless Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceHeuristicsWireless sensor networkData aggregatorOverhead (engineering)Flow networkInteger programmingComputer networkDistributed computingMathematical optimizationAlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the approaches to extending the lifetime of Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) based on in-network data aggregation at the First Hop (FH) away from each sensor data source, followed by flow-based routing of the resulting traffic. We introduce the concept of flow loss multiplier to express the impact of data aggregation on the conveyed data. A Mixed Integer Linear Programming (MILP) model is formulated for the problem of determining the optimal FH aggregation nodes that maximise network lifetime. Heuristics are proposed to obtain significant aggregation and to prolong the system lifetime. To facilitate performance evaluation, we adopt a flow loss multiplier that depends on the spatial relationship among sensed areas. Simulation results show that FH aggregation provides significant increase in network lifetime for both flow-based and tree-based delivery schemes, and that flow-based mechanisms provide better network lifetime than tree-based mechanisms but at the cost of added complexity and overhead.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations9
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sensor NetworksSame topicEnergy Efficient Wireless Sensor NetworksFrench-language works237,207