MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122222759 · doi:10.1109/glocom.2010.5683147

Establishing Strict Priorities in IEEE 802.11p WAVE Vehicular Networks

2010· article· en· W2122222759 on OpenAlexaff
Mohssin Barradi, Abdelhakim Hafid, José R. Gallardo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWireless Networks and Protocols
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExponential backoffComputer scienceComputer networkControl channelIEEE 802.11pDedicated short-range communicationsChannel (broadcasting)Vehicular ad hoc networkTransmission (telecommunications)WirelessSimple (philosophy)Scheme (mathematics)CollisionProtocol (science)ThroughputComputer securityWireless ad hoc networkTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The WAVE (Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments) concept includes seven channels within the DSRC band. One of them, known as the Control Channel (CCH), is the one used to exchange all safety-related messages. Messages sent over the CCH have to be processed with different priorities depending on how critical they are for vehicle safety. However, the MAC protocol currently adopted for WAVE, namely EDCA, stops short of that requirement; it does not establish strict priorities, but only relative advantages for some types of messages over the others. Another problem is that, since messages are broadcasted on the CCH, there are no acknowledgments. This means that it is not possible to know whether a transmission was successful or not, which eliminates the possibility to use the binary exponential backoff technique to reduce congestion. In this paper, we propose a simple but effective solution to both of these problems. We use simulations to analyze the performance of the modified MAC protocol and compare it to that of the original EDCA. The results show that the proposed scheme outperforms EDCA. Our comparison focuses on the reduced probability of collision for high-priority frames (gain) and on the increased delays for lower-priority frames (price to pay).

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.218 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations42
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWireless Networks and ProtocolsFrench-language works237,207