MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109975601 · doi:10.1109/icassp.2008.4518343

Performance characteristics of collaborative beamforming for wireless sensor networks with Gaussian distributed sensor nodes

2008· article· en· W2109975601 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

VenueProceedings of the ... IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAntenna Design and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWireless sensor networkBeamformingProbability density functionGaussianComputer scienceContext (archaeology)Key distribution in wireless sensor networksTransmission (telecommunications)Range (aeronautics)Upper and lower boundsWirelessReal-time computingComputer networkWireless networkEngineeringTelecommunicationsMathematicsGeographyPhysicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Collaborative beamforming has been recently introduced in the context of wireless sensor networks (WSNs) to increase the transmission range of individual sensor nodes. In this paper, it is proposed to model the spatial distribution of sensor nodes in a cluster using Gaussian probability density function (pdf). Gaussian pdf is more appropriate for many WSN applications than the previously considered uniform pdf which is more suitable when sensor nodes are deployed one at a time. The average beampattern and its characteristics, the distribution function of the beampattern level in the sidelobe region, and the upper bound on the outage probability of sidelobes are derived using the theory of random arrays.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.741
Threshold uncertainty score0.632

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.206 · 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