MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109211145 · doi:10.1109/cjece.2013.6544467

Cubic spline-based tag estimation method in RFID multi-tags identification process

2013· article· en· W2109211145 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Masoud Shakiba, Elankovan Sundararajan, Azam Zavvari, Mohammad Tariqul Islam

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRFID technology advancements
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRadio-frequency identificationSpline interpolationCollisionProcess (computing)Identification (biology)Interpolation (computer graphics)A priori and a posterioriReal-time computingAlgorithmData miningFrame (networking)TelecommunicationsComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) system is a communication technology used to identify objects using electromagnetic waves. The key advantage of RFID systems stems from their ability to simultaneously identify multiple tagged objects. However, communication of multiple tags with a reader may result in a collision problem, which is both time and energy inefficient, hindering the effectiveness of tag identification process. Presently, several anti-collision algorithms can be applied in order to reduce the collision probability. The reader¿s a priori knowledge of tag quantity significantly affects the overall performance of the system. Since the exact number of tags is not available for the reader, it is essential to develop an accurate tag estimation method to increase the efficiency of tag identification process. This paper presents a novel tag quantity estimation method, whereby, after simulating the tag distribution process, cubic spline interpolation method is employed to approximate the number of tags. According to the simulation results and the evaluation of the previous estimation methods, the new proposed method estimates the number of tags with a higher accuracy yielding an error rate of less than 1%, on average. Moreover, this low error rate is preserved even when the number of tags increases considerably.

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)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations13
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Electrical and Computer EngineeringSame topicRFID technology advancementsFrench-language works237,207