MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073185086 · doi:10.1109/iwcmc.2012.6314310

Combined Reactive-Geographic routing for Unmanned Aeronautical Ad-hoc Networks

2012· article· en· W2073185086 on OpenAlexafffund
Rostam Shirani, Marc St‐Hilaire, Thomas Kunz, Yifeng Zhou, Jun Li, Louise Lamont

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUAV Applications and Optimization
Canadian institutionsCommunications Research Centre CanadaCarleton University
FundersDefence Research and Development Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer networkZone Routing ProtocolWireless Routing ProtocolDynamic Source RoutingOptimized Link State Routing ProtocolLink-state routing protocolGeographic routingDestination-Sequenced Distance Vector routingRouting protocolDistributed computingRouting (electronic design automation)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a result of high mobility of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), designing a good routing protocol is challenging for Unmanned Aeronautical Ad-hoc Networks (UAANETs). Geographic-based routing mechanisms are seen to be an interesting option for routing in UAANETs due to the fact that location information of UAVs is readily available. In this paper, a combined routing protocol, called the Reactive-Greedy-Reactive (RGR), is presented for UAANET applications, which combines the mechanisms of the Greedy Geographic Forwarding (GGF) and reactive routing. The proposed RGR employs location information of UAVs as well as reactive end-to-end paths in the routing process. Simulation results show that RGR outperforms existing protocols such as Ad-hoc On-demand Distance Vector (AODV) in search UAANET missions in terms of delay and packet delivery ratio, yet its overhead is similar to traditional mechanisms.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations49
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUAV Applications and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207