MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098345586 · doi:10.1109/wcnc.2002.993387

Coverage enhancement through two-hop relaying in cellular radio systems

2003· article· en· W2098345586 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelayComputer scienceComputer networkBase stationNode (physics)Transmitter power outputChannel (broadcasting)Radio repeaterInterference (communication)Power controlHop (telecommunications)Electronic engineeringPower (physics)TransmitterRemote radio headEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Digital relaying is a technique that uses certain mobile terminals that have good communication links with the base station to act as relay nodes for those that do not have. With this technique, the signal quality at the destination is expected to improve since the signal only goes through favorable links and, at each intermediate node, the signal is decoded and re-encoded (so that no noise is propagated) before forwarding. One of the major costs of relaying is that additional channels are needed. We investigated the effect of using different schemes for selecting channels - among those already used in the adjacent cells - for relaying on performance improvement. Our simulation results show that not only can relaying improve the performance; but also, with power control this improvement is quite insensitive to the channel selection scheme. Furthermore, with small cell radii where there is a potential for high interference level, only a low relay node transmit power is sufficient to improve the system performance significantly.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.415

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.236 · 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