MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096882815 · doi:10.1109/tpds.2006.125

Localized Communication and Topology Protocols for Ad Hoc Networks-Part II: A Preface to the Special Section

2006· article· en· W2096882815 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

VenueIEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMobile Ad Hoc Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer networkWireless ad hoc networkTopology controlDistributed computingNetwork topologyWireless sensor networkMobile ad hoc networkNode (physics)Overhead (engineering)Quality of serviceUnicastNeighbor Discovery ProtocolRouting (electronic design automation)Routing protocolKey (lock)Wireless networkKey distribution in wireless sensor networksWirelessTelecommunicationsNetwork packetThe InternetComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1 THE SCOPE WE are very proud and honored to have been entrusted to guest edit this special section. The main goal was to put together a strong issue emphasizing quality and relevance to current interests in this important field. Papers were sought to cover comprehensively the algorithmic issues in the “hot” area of ad hoc and sensor networking. The concentration was on the network layer problems which can be divided into two groups: data communication and topology control problems. In data communication problems, such as routing, quality-of-service routing, geocasting, multicasting, and broadcasting, the primary goal is to fulfill a given communication task successfully between nodes in an ad hoc network. The secondary task is to minimize the communication overhead and power consumption given that in the vast majority of applications nodes run on batteries. Topology control problems are further subdivided into neighbor discovery and network organization problems. In the neighbor discovery problem, the problem is to detect neighboring nodes located within transmission range. In the network organization problem, each node should decide what communication links to establish with neighboring nodes (an example is the Bluetooth scatternet formation problem), and what power management schemes to adopt (examples are “sleep” period operations and adjusting transmission ranges). Due to their theoretical challenges and myriads of practical applications, wireless sensor networks are emerging as one of the priority research and development areas. The applications of sensor networks are envisioned primarily for monitoring the environment (e.g., motion detection, chemicals, temperature) or as key components in embedded systems (e.g., biomedical sensor engineering). This special section also sought submissions on this “hot” topic, including problems such as: physical properties, sensor training, security through intelligent node cooperation, medium access, sensor area coverage with random and deterministic placement, object location, sensor position determination, energy efficient broadcasting and activity scheduling, routing, connectivity, data dissemination and gathering, sensor centric quality of routing, path exposure, tree reconfiguration, topology construction, and transport layer. The main paradigm shift is to apply localized schemes as opposed to existing protocols requiring global information. Localized algorithms are distributed algorithms where simple local node behavior achieves a desired global objective. Localized protocols provide scalable solutions, that is, solutions for wireless networks with an arbitrary number of nodes, which is the main goal of this plan. Sensor and rooftop/mesh networks, for instance, have hundreds or thousands of nodes.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.662

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.239 · 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