MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127371329 · doi:10.1109/aina.2007.144

Uniformity and Efficiency of a Wireless Sensor Network's Coverage

2007· article· en· W2127371329 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 · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEnergy Efficient Wireless Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsAcadia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWireless sensor networkComputer scienceKey distribution in wireless sensor networksProcess (computing)Mobile wireless sensor networkComputer networkWireless networkWirelessReal-time computingTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The primary contribution of this paper is in a wireless sensor network's coverage analysis method, which focuses on both the coverage itself and its uniformity and efficiency. Sensor death is typical in the life cycle of a wireless sensor network. Hence it is important to take note of what portion of the target region is monitored by the sensor network both initially and eventually. This paper proposes a useful wireless sensor networks' coverage analysis method, which not only focuses on the coverage itself, but also on its uniformity and efficiency. In the process, several questions such as whether the monitored region is uniformly distributed throughout the target region, or whether there are locations in the target region that are overmonitored, are answered. The paper also specifies for which type of applications the proposed coverage analysis method will be most suitable.

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)0.001
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 score0.857
Threshold uncertainty score0.718

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.205 · 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