MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097574533 · doi:10.1109/ntms.2011.5720598

Comparisons of Home Area Network Connection Alternatives for Multifamily Dwelling Units

2011· article· en· W2097574533 on OpenAlexaff
Jun Wang, Victor C. M. Leung

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIoT-based Smart Home Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer networkDefault gatewayComputer scienceHome automationNetwork packetRepeater (horology)Smart gridResidential gatewayNetwork topologyEnergy consumptionEmbedded systemTelecommunicationsEngineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Viewed as an integral part of the smart grid, the Smart Home provides users the convenience, comfort and energy efficiency through centralized control of lighting, HVAC, appliances, and other home systems. Zigbee's low power consumption, build-in security method and operating on ISM bands make it one of the winner solutions for Smart Homes. Nevertheless challenges are raised to connect home devices and smart meters which are usually located on another floor in multifamily dwelling units. Distance or/and obstruction limitation needs to be overcome. We propose and compare three connection alternatives - Zigbee repeater, ZigBee/WiFi gateway and hybrid approach. Zigbee repeater method utilizes tree topology for forwarding packets multiple hops to distant destinations. ZigBee/WiFi gateways are used to interconnect ZigBee and WiFi networks. The hybrid approach will combine both of their features. In our paper, we present our performance evaluations of these three alternatives under extensive scenarios using OPNET modeler. Finally, we conclude and propose our future work.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.157 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIoT-based Smart Home SystemsFrench-language works237,207