MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108825267 · doi:10.1109/pccc.2005.1460516

Performance evaluation of range-free localization methods for wireless sensor networks

2005· article· en· W2108825267 on OpenAlex
Kui Wu

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
FieldEngineering
TopicIndoor and Outdoor Localization Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWireless sensor networkSignal strengthComputer scienceSoftware deploymentRange (aeronautics)Node (physics)Point (geometry)WirelessDistributed computingComputer networkMathematicsEngineeringTelecommunicationsStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we perform thorough performance evaluation on two novel range-free localization methods, approximate point in triangle (APIT) [T. He et al. (2003)] and ring overlapping based on comparison of received signal strength indicator (ROCRSSI) [C. Liu et al. (2004)]. We disclose the inherent "undetermined node" problem of APIT, and investigate the system configurations that directly influence the performance of both methods, including anchor deployment strategies, which are ignored by most existing papers. We also illustrate the relationship between these configurations and the achievable estimation accuracy.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.876
Threshold uncertainty score0.370

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.278 · 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