MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103261319 · doi:10.1109/glocom.2005.1578422

Comparison of modulation schemes and rake receiver structures for UWB systems on an IEEE 802.15.3 indoor channel

2005· article· en· W2103261319 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
FieldEngineering
TopicUltra-Wideband Communications Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntersymbol interferenceRake receiverRakeComputer scienceElectronic engineeringFadingModulation (music)Interference (communication)Bit error ratePulse-position modulationChannel (broadcasting)Ultra-widebandTransmission (telecommunications)Computer networkTelecommunicationsEngineeringPulse-amplitude modulationPhysicsAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The all-Rake and selective-Rake receiver structures are examined for different transmission scenarios, including multiple access interference and intersymbol interference environments. The results show that the all-Rake receiver does not necessarily offer the best performance when operating in intersymbol interference environments. Some candidate modulation schemes proposed for ultra-wideband communications are assessed and compared using a measurements-based fading model. Although some analytical and semi-analytical methods using the Gaussian approximation predict the same bit error rate estimates for several modulation schemes, our results show that the actual performances of these modulation schemes are different

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.450
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.310
Teacher spread0.270 · 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