Empirical assessment of 1.7 GHz micro-diversity in various buildings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To achieve reliable radio communications inside buildings, microdiversity is required to mitigate the severe multipath and temporal fading. The authors present results of diversity measurements from 100 locations in four university buildings. They computed cumulative distribution functions (CDFs) of the envelope fading statistics for space, frequency, and space/frequency (hybrid) diversity. CDFs from space diversity were best in open areas with an average value of -7.6 dB at 99% time availability and worst in a building with cement interior walls yielding -8.9 dB. These differences were only 1 to 2 dB, suggesting that these results may be useful for similar buildings. Frequency diversity showed similar trends but with 1.5 to 2.0 dB poorer results. In general, the output fading statistics were best in areas with many line-of-sight (LOS) paths, while the diversity gains were larger for buildings with more severe fading due to non-LOS paths. Results from one-minute measurements indicated that higher orders of diversity significantly reduce the fading variations between locations.>
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".