MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070585551 · doi:10.1109/icc.2014.6883894

Performance and applicability of candidate routing protocols for smart grid's wireless mesh neighbor area networks

2014· article· en· W2070585551 on OpenAlexafffund
Quang‐Dung Ho, Yue Gao, Gowdemy Rajalingham, Tho Le‐Ngoc

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Security and Resilience
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer networkComputer scienceRouting protocolWireless mesh networkSmart gridDistributed computingDynamic Source RoutingWireless Routing ProtocolNeighbor Discovery ProtocolStateless protocolOrder One Network ProtocolWirelessWireless networkRouting (electronic design automation)Network packetInternet ProtocolEngineeringTelecommunicationsThe Internet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neighbor area network (NAN) is one of the most important segments of smart grid communications network (SGCN) since it is responsible for the information exchanges between the utility and a large number of smart meters (SMs) in order to enable various important smart grid (SG) applications. Greedy perimeter stateless routing (GPSR) and the routing protocol for low-power and lossy networks (RPL) have been considered as the most promising layer-3 protocols for wireless mesh NANs. This paper compares the system performance and investigates the applicability of these two protocols in practical NAN scenarios. Specifically, transmission reliability, latency and routing path details of GPSR and RPL are studied by extensive simulations. The advantages and disadvantages of each protocol with respect to the characteristics and required features of NAN are discussed in details. The effects of wireless channel characteristics and network offered load levels are also investigated.

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.733
Threshold uncertainty score0.427

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations20
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSmart Grid Security and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207