MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024591913 · doi:10.1109/aina.2014.112

Energy Hole Analysis for Energy Efficient Routing in BANs

2014· article· en· W2024591913 on OpenAlexaff
K. Latif, Nadeem Javaid, Adeel Iqbal, Zahoor Ali Khan, Umar Qasim, Turki Ali Alghamdi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWireless Body Area Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceEnergy consumptionRouting (electronic design automation)Computer networkMultipath routingDynamic Source RoutingStatic routingNetwork packetRouting protocolEnergy (signal processing)Wireless sensor networkGeographic routingLink-state routing protocolPolicy-based routingNode (physics)Efficient energy useEngineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wireless Body Area sensor Networks (WBANs) enable innovative health care monitoring. Limited energy source of a sensor node limits WBANs for long time monitoring of health care. Efficient energy utilization is therefore one of the research challenges inWBANs. In this research work we analysed energy utilization of popular routing techniques. We formulate a mathematical framework to identify energy utilization in transmission, receive and over-hearing processes. Simulation results show that how distance, packet size, and over-hearing effect different routing techniques from energy consumption perspective. From the analysis, we produced useful results which are helpful in: identifying overloaded nodes in the network which may cause creation of energy holes, and in designing new routing techniques for specific WBANs application.

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)0.003
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.186
Teacher spread0.181 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWireless Body Area NetworksFrench-language works237,207