MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034657792 · doi:10.1109/jsyst.2013.2294881

On the Overheads of Ad Hoc Routing Schemes

2014· article· en· W2034657792 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

VenueIEEE Systems Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMobile Ad Hoc Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer networkLink-state routing protocolWireless Routing ProtocolDynamic Source RoutingOptimized Link State Routing ProtocolDistributed computingWireless ad hoc networkDestination-Sequenced Distance Vector routingStatic routingRouting protocolAdaptive quality of service multi-hop routingMobile ad hoc networkAd hoc wireless distribution servicePolicy-based routingRouting (electronic design automation)WirelessTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The “first wave” of wireless ad hoc routing protocols was heavily influenced by the routing algorithms used in wired networks. However, their overheads due to topology changes and the implicit restriction to point-to-point control messages meant that extensive effort had to be expended in “fixing” them to fit the intricacies and opportunities offered by wireless environments. In this paper, we analyze and compare the most widely used routing protocols in mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs). In particular, we consider routing and control overheads, storage requirements, and network setup costs of these protocols to see how well they fit in MANETs with nodes that have scarce resources.

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)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.817
Threshold uncertainty score0.297

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.218 · 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