MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096927040 · doi:10.1155/2010/258935

COSR: A Reputation-Based Secure Route Protocol in MANET

2010· article· en· W2096927040 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

VenueEURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMobile Ad Hoc Networks
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
FundersProgram for New Century Excellent Talents in University
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer networkMobile ad hoc networkReputationNode (physics)Protocol (science)Computer securityWireless ad hoc networkRouting protocolDistributed computingRouting (electronic design automation)TelecommunicationsWireless

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Now, the route protocols defined in the Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) are constructed in a common assumption which all nodes contained in such networks are trustworthy and cooperative. Once malicious or selfish nodes exist, all route paths built by these protocols must be broken immediately. According to the secure problems within MANET, this paper proposes Cooperative On-demand Secure Route (COSR), a novel secure source route protocol, against malicious and selfish behaviors. COSR measures node reputation (NR) and route reputation (RR) by contribution, Capability of Forwarding (CoF) and recommendation upon Dynamic Source Route (DSR) and uses RR to balance load to avoid hotpoint. Furthermore, COSR defines path collection algorithm by NR to enhance efficiency of protocol. At last, we verify COSR through GloMoSim. Results show that COSR is secure and stable.

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)0.001
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 score0.899
Threshold uncertainty score0.727

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.273 · 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