MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007022279 · doi:10.3390/s140815262

Particle Swarm Inspired Underwater Sensor Self-Deployment

2014· article· en· W2007022279 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUnderwater Vehicles and Communication Systems
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersProgram for New Century Excellent Talents in University
KeywordsSoftware deploymentUnderwaterWireless sensor networkComputer scienceReal-time computingParticle swarm optimizationCover (algebra)Convergence (economics)Distributed computingEngineeringComputer networkAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Underwater sensor networks (UWSNs) can be applied in sea resource reconnaissance, pollution monitoring and assistant navigation, etc., and have become a hot research field in wireless sensor networks. In open and complicated underwater environments, targets (events) tend to be highly dynamic and uncertain. It is important to deploy sensors to cover potential events in an optimal manner. In this paper, the underwater sensor deployment problem and its performance evaluation metrics are introduced. Furthermore, a particle swarm inspired sensor self-deployment algorithm is presented. By simulating the flying behavior of particles and introducing crowd control, the proposed algorithm can drive sensors to cover almost all the events, and make the distribution of sensors match that of events. Through extensive simulations, we demonstrate that it can solve the underwater sensor deployment problem effectively, with fast convergence rate, and amiable to distributed implementation.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.415
Threshold uncertainty score0.925

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)0.0000.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.193 · 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