MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097081530 · doi:10.1109/glocom.2005.1578328

Maximum network lifetime in fault tolerant sensor networks

2005· article· en· W2097081530 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

VenueGLOBECOM '05. IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference, 2005. · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEnergy Efficient Wireless Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceErasure codeNetwork packetFault toleranceComputer networkErasureWireless sensor networkSink (geography)Linear network codingCommunication sourceDistributed computingReal-time computingDecoding methodsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper introduces a novel technique to maximize the lifetime of fault tolerant sensor networks. The proposed architecture uses multipath diversity in the network layer and erasure codes. We use a distributed sink where information arrives at the sink via multiple proxy nodes, called "prongs" in this paper. The sender node uses erasure coding and splits each packet into multiple fragments and transmits the fragments over multiple parallel paths. The erasure coding allows the sink to reconstruct the original packet even if some of the fragments are lost. Occasionally, the sink broadcasts a query to awaken the sensors and to allow them to collect information about probability of packet loss and energy consumption in the network. The awakened sensors then use the collected information to distribute their data among different prongs so as to maximize the network lifetime, while keeping reliability in the network above a certain level

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Open science
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 score0.769
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0060.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.237 · 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