MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092585135 · doi:10.1002/wcm.246

Call admission control in mobile cellular networks: a comprehensive survey

2005· article· en· W2092585135 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

VenueWireless Communications and Mobile Computing · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWireless Communication Networks Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceHandoverCall Admission ControlReservationQuality of serviceCellular networkComputer networkContext (archaeology)Key (lock)PrioritizationService (business)Admission controlControl (management)Wireless networkWirelessTelecommunicationsArtificial intelligenceComputer securityManagement science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Call admission control (CAC) is a key element in the provision of guaranteed quality of service (QoS) in wireless networks. The design of CAC algorithms for mobile cellular networks is especially challenging given the limited and highly variable resources, and the mobility of users encountered in such networks. This article provides a survey of admission control schemes for cellular networks and the research in this area. Our goal is to provide a broad classification and thorough discussion of existing CAC schemes. We classify these schemes based on factors such as deterministic/stochastic guarantees, distributed/local control and adaptivity to traffic conditions. In addition to this, we present some modeling and analysis basics to help in better understanding the performance and efficiency of admission control schemes in cellular networks. We describe several admission control schemes and compare them in terms of performance and complexity. Handoff prioritization is the common characteristic of these schemes. We survey different approaches proposed for achieving handoff prioritization with a focus on reservation schemes. Moreover, optimal and near‐optimal reservation schemes are presented and discussed. Also, we overview other important schemes such as those designed for multi‐service networks and hierarchical systems as well as complete knowledge schemes and those using pricing for CAC. Finally, the paper concludes on the state of current research and points out some of the key issues that need to be addressed in the context of CAC for future cellular networks. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.802
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.275 · 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