MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068129054 · doi:10.1109/tii.2012.2225436

Distributed Deployment Strategies for Improved Coverage in a Network of Mobile Sensors With Prioritized Sensing Field

2012· article· en· W2068129054 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 Transactions on Industrial Informatics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEnergy Efficient Wireless Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVoronoi diagramWireless sensor networkSoftware deploymentComputer scienceField (mathematics)Real-time computingTopology (electrical circuits)Computer networkEngineeringMathematicsElectrical engineeringGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Efficient deployment strategies are proposed for a mobile sensor network, where the coverage priority of different points in the field is specified by a given function. The multiplicatively weighted Voronoi (MW-Voronoi) diagram is utilized to find the coverage holes of the network for the case where the sensing ranges of different sensors are not the same. Under the proposed strategies, each sensor detects coverage holes within its MW-Voronoi region, and then moves in a proper direction to reduce their size. Since the coverage priority of the field is not uniform, the target location of each sensor is determined based on the weights of the vertices or the points inside the corresponding MW-Voronoi region. Simulations validate the theoretical results.

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 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 score0.816
Threshold uncertainty score0.816

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.223 · 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