A node scheduling scheme for energy conservation in large wireless sensor networks
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In wireless sensor networks that consist of a large number of low‐power, short‐lived, unreliable sensors, one of the main design challenges is to obtain long system lifetime without sacrificing system original performances (sensing coverage and sensing reliability). In this paper, we propose a node‐scheduling scheme, which can reduce system overall energy consumption, therefore increasing system lifetime, by identifying redundant nodes in respect of sensing coverage and then assigning them an off‐duty operation mode that has lower energy consumption than the normal on‐duty one. Our scheme aims to completely preserve original sensing coverage theoretically. Practically, sensing coverage degradation caused by location error, packet loss and node failure is very limited, not more than 1% as shown by our experimental results. In addition, the experimental results illustrate that certain redundancy is still guaranteed after node‐scheduling, which we believe can provide enough sensing reliability in many applications. We implement the proposed scheme in NS‐2 as an extension of the LEACH protocol and compare its energy consumption with the original LEACH. Simulation results exhibit noticeably longer system lifetime after introducing our scheme than before. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it