MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048124977 · doi:10.1155/2015/532676

Delay-Sensitive Routing Schemes for Underwater Acoustic Sensor Networks

2015· article· en· W2048124977 on OpenAlexaff
Nadeem Javaid, Mohsin Raza Jafri, Sheeraz Ahmed, Mohsin Jamil, Zahoor Ali Khan, Umar Qasim, S. S. Al-Saleh

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUnderwater Vehicles and Communication Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaDalhousie University
FundersKing Saud University
KeywordsComputer scienceEnd-to-end delayRouting (electronic design automation)Propagation delayTransmission delayNetwork delayComputer networkTransmission (telecommunications)Static routingUnderwaterRouting protocolThroughputUnderwater acousticsReal-time computingTelecommunicationsNetwork packet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Underwater Acoustic Sensor Networks (UASNs) offer their practicable applications in seismic monitoring, sea mine detection, and disaster prevention. In these networks, fundamental difference between operational methodologies of routing schemes arises due to the requirement of time-critical applications; therefore, there is a need for the design of delay-sensitive techniques. In this paper, Delay-Sensitive Depth-Based Routing (DSDBR), Delay-Sensitive Energy Efficient Depth-Based Routing (DSEEDBR), and Delay-Sensitive Adaptive Mobility of Courier nodes in Threshold-optimized Depth-based routing (DSAMCTD) protocols are proposed to empower the depth-based routing schemes. The performance of the proposed schemes is validated in UASNs. All of the three schemes formulate delay-efficient Priority Factors (PF) and Delay-Sensitive Holding time ([Formula: see text]) to minimize end-to-end delay with a small decrease in network throughput. These schemes also employ an optimal weight function ([Formula: see text]) for the computation of transmission loss and speed of received signal. Furthermore, solution for delay lies in efficient data forwarding, minimal relative transmissions in low-depth region, and better forwarder selection. Simulations are performed to assess the proposed protocols and the results indicate that the three schemes largely minimize end-to-end delay along with improving the transmission loss of network.

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)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.256
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations71
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Distributed Sensor NetworksSame topicUnderwater Vehicles and Communication SystemsFrench-language works237,207