MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078668314 · doi:10.4236/sgre.2011.22016

Smart Home Networking: Lessons from Combining Wireless and Powerline Networking

2011· article· en· W2078668314 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

VenueSmart Grid and Renewable Energy · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBluetooth and Wireless Communication Technologies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSmart gridPower-line communicationDemand responseHome automationReliability (semiconductor)WirelessComputer scienceComputer networkWireless networkRenewable energyEngineeringTelecommunicationsElectricityPower (physics)Electrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Integrating the power grid technology with renewable power generation technologies, Demand Response (DR) programs enabled by the Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) were introduced into the power grid in the interest of both utilities and residents. They help to achieve load balance and increase the grid reliability by encouraging residents to reduce their power usage during peak load periods in return for incentives. To automate this process, appliances, in-house sensors, and the AMI controller need to be networked together. In this paper, we compare mainstream network technologies applicable to home appliance control and propose a solution combining Power Line Communication (PLC) with wireless communication in smart homes for the purpose of energy saving. We extended NS-2, a popular network simulator, to model such combined network scenarios. Using a number of different routing strategies, we then model and evaluate the network performance of DR programs in smart homes in such a combined 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.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.726
Threshold uncertainty score0.923

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 science0.0010.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.188 · 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