MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089092796 · doi:10.1109/iwcmc.2011.5982534

Clock synchronization in WSN: Simulation vs. implementation

2011· article· en· W2089092796 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Time Synchronization Technologies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTestbedComputer scienceSynchronization (alternating current)Clock synchronizationMATLABData synchronizationReal-time computingTime synchronizationWireless sensor networkEmbedded systemComputer networkOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A WSN consists of numerous nodes gathering observations and combining these observations. Often, the timing of these observations is of importance when processing sensor data. Thus, a need for clock synchronization arises in WSNs. The CS-MNS algorithm has been proposed to fulfil this role. This paper compares simulation results and testbed results for CS-MNS. The simulations were done using Matlab, the testbed implementation was done in TinyOS 2.1, running on a mix of TelosB and MCIAz motes. The results demonstrate good qualitative agreement between simulation and experimentation in most cases. Quantitatively, the testbed results converge slower and achieve less synchronization accuracy, however.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.926
Threshold uncertainty score0.469

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.248 · 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