MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012580554 · doi:10.1155/2013/568580

A Cross-Layer Framework for Network Management in Wireless Sensor Networks Using Weighted Cognitive Maps

2013· article· en· W2012580554 on OpenAlexafffund
Amr El Mougy, Mohamed Ibnkahla

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCognitive Science and Mapping
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceQuality of serviceThroughputComputer networkWireless sensor networkDistributed computingNetwork packetNetwork managementWireless networkApplication layerHeterogeneous networkWirelessSoftware deploymentTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Achieving the end-to-end goals and objectives of Wireless Sensor Networks (WSN) is a highly challenging task. Such objectives include maximizing network lifetime, guaranteeing connectivity and coverage, and maximizing throughput. In addition, some of these goals are in conflict such as network lifetime and throughput. Cross-layer design can be efficient in proposing network management techniques that can consider different network objectives and conflicting constraints. This can be highly valuable in challenging applications where multiple Quality of Service (QoS) requirements may be demanded. In this paper, a novel cross-layer framework for network management is proposed that particularly targets WSN with challenging applications. The proposed framework is designed using the tool known as Weighted Cognitive Map (WCM). The inference properties of WCMs allow the system to consider multiple objectives and constraints while maintaining low complexity. Methods for achieving different objectives using WCMs are illustrated, as well as how system processes can operate coherently to achieve common end-to-end goals. Using extensive computer simulations, the proposed system is evaluated. The results show that it achieves good performance results in metrics of network lifetime, throughput, and Packet Loss Ratio (PLR).

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)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Distributed Sensor NetworksSame topicCognitive Science and MappingFrench-language works237,207