MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051702151 · doi:10.1109/mwc.2012.6231157

Suresense: sustainable wireless rechargeable sensor networks for the smart grid

2012· article· en· W2051702151 on OpenAlexaff
Melike Erol‐Kantarci, Hussein T. Mouftah

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Wireless Communications · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Harvesting in Wireless Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWireless sensor networkComputer scienceSmart gridBottleneckKey distribution in wireless sensor networksWirelessComputer networkContext (archaeology)GridWireless networkTelecommunicationsEmbedded systemElectrical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The electrical power grid has recently been embracing the advances in Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) for the sake of improving efficiency, safety, reliability and sustainability of electrical services. For a reliable smart grid, accurate, robust monitoring and diagnosis tools are essential. Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) are promising candidates for monitoring the smart grid, given their capability to cover large geographic regions at low-cost. On the other hand, limited battery lifetime of the conventional WSNs may create a performance bottleneck for the long-lasting smart grid monitoring tasks, especially considering that the sensor nodes may be deployed in hard to reach, harsh environments. In this context, recent advances in Radio Frequency (RF)-based wireless energy transfer can increase sustainability of WSNs and make them operationally ready for smart grid monitoring missions. RF-based wireless energy transfer uses Electromagnetic (EM) waves and it operates in the same medium as the data communication protocols. In order to achieve timely and efficient charging of the sensor nodes, we propose the Sustainable wireless Rechargeable Sensor network (SuReSense). SuReSense employs mobile chargers that charge multiple sensors from several landmark locations. We propose an optimization model to select the minimum number of landmarks according to the locations and energy replenishment requirements of the sensors.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations134
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Wireless CommunicationsSame topicEnergy Harvesting in Wireless NetworksFrench-language works237,207