MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116596428 · doi:10.1109/tc.2010.227

Target Association Rules: A New Behavioral Patterns for Point of Coverage Wireless Sensor Networks

2010· article· en· W2116596428 on OpenAlex
Samer Samarah, Azzedine Boukerche, Alexander Shema Habyalimana

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

VenueIEEE Transactions on Computers · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEnergy Efficient Wireless Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceWireless sensor networkScheduleAssociation (psychology)Association rule learningEnergy consumptionData miningWirelessNode (physics)Process (computing)Set (abstract data type)Real-time computingComputer networkEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, Knowledge Discovery Process has proven to be a promising tool for extracting the behavioral patterns of sensor nodes, from wireless sensor networks. In this paper, we propose a new kind of behavioral pattern, named Target-based Association Rules (TARs). TARs aim to discover the correlation among a set of targets monitored by a wireless sensor network at a border area. The major application of the Target-based Rules is to predict the location (target) of a missed reported event. Different data preparation mechanisms for accumulating the data needed for extracting TARs have been proposed. We refer to these mechanisms as Al-Node, Schedule-Buffer, and Fused-Schedule-Buffer. Several experiment studies have been conducted to evaluate the performance of the three proposed data preparation mechanisms. Results show that the Fused-Schedule-Buffer scheme outperforms the selected schemes in terms of energy consumption.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.733
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.223 · 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