MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126845881 · doi:10.1109/pimrc.1996.568423

Overview of PCS unlicensed wireless standards in the US

2002· article· en· W2126845881 on OpenAlexaff
S. Kuan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower Line Communications and Noise
Canadian institutionsNortel (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersonal Communications ServiceTelecommunicationsComputer scienceStandardizationWirelessComputer networkRoamingComputer securityWi-Fi arrayWireless network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The demand for wireless services is growing rapidly. The extension of services into the in-building environments and in public pedestrian areas further enhance this trend. This trend is no exception in the United States. With the availability of spectrum in the PCS unlicense band it becomes apparent that standardization is required to provide cost-effective solutions for in-building business applications. This paper discuss the three user premise equipment wireless standards developed in the TIA (Telecommunications Industry Association). The main purpose of this organization was to develop the standards for inter-vendor operability for operation in the US PCS unlicense band. The three user premise equipment wireless standards are PWT (Personal Wireless Terminal), PCI (Personal Communication Interface) and PACS (Personal Access Communication System). Operation in the unlicense band is first discussed. Both voice or isochronous type services and data or asynchronous services are accommodated in the PCS unlicense band. Different rules of access governs each service type. A process of channel monitoring with a listen-before-transmit protocol is provided to allow for sharing of channels in the band. This process, also better known as the "etiquette rule" or "spectrum etiquette", together with standardization of the three over-the-air protocols in the TIA provides a significant new opportunity for the extension of personal communications for the in-building business applications.

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 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.366
Threshold uncertainty score0.349

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPower Line Communications and NoiseFrench-language works237,207