MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039357626 · doi:10.1109/glocom.2006.492

WSN05-5: On Node Population in a Multi-Level 802.15.4 Sensor Network

2006· article· en· W2039357626 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

VenueGlobecom · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEnergy Efficient Wireless Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNode (physics)Cluster (spacecraft)Reliability (semiconductor)Wireless sensor networkComputer scienceComputer networkPopulationEvent (particle physics)Bridge (graph theory)Topology (electrical circuits)Distributed computingEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider the problem of maintaining the prescribed event sensing reliability while maximizing cluster and network lifetime in a multi-cluster 802.15.4 sensor network. Clusters are connected through bridges which also act as cluster coordinators; both ordinary nodes and bridges resolve contention using the CSMA-CA algorithm. Cluster lifetime is maximized through the use of redundant sensors which are periodically sent to sleep using a simple distributed activity management algorithm. Network lifetime is maximized by equalizing lifetimes of individual clusters through the adjustment of the number of nodes. We model this problem analytically and derive the probability distribution of the network lifetime. We also derive the expression for node count that compensates for the increased load due to contention caused by the bridge. Experiments show that this technique easily equalizes cluster lifetimes.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.360
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.219 · 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