Radio-wave propagation into an underground mine environment at 2.4 GHz, 5.8 GHz and 60 GHz
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, an overview of the overall channel characterizations for wireless communication systems in underground mines is presented. Such environments, because of the very nature of the mining operation, the complexity of the systems, and the procedures and extraction methods of the minerals are considered to be dangerous, hazardous and aggressive. Radio signals suffer from strong attenuations due to reflection, diffractions and scatterings in this complex transmission medium. The transmitted radio signals are therefore subject to different impairments and distortions. Moreover, for the deployment of a wireless network, the choice of the operation frequency band, which has a major impact on the planning and the dimensioning, is as important as the deploying environment. Propagation measurements were carried out at 2.4 GHz, 5.8 GHz and 60 GHz. These frequencies were targeted because they are commonly used for different wireless communication applications. This paper summarizes different findings on the propagation characteristic parameters such as the path loss, outage probability, delay spread and the coherence bandwidth. This the first time, to our knowledge, that a comparison of the operating frequency effects in an underground mine is reported.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it