MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129165750 · doi:10.1109/lcn.2005.95

On relay node placement and locally optimal traffic allocation in heterogeneous wireless sensor networks

2005· article· en· W2129165750 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEnergy Efficient Wireless Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelayComputer scienceNode (physics)Computer networkWireless sensor networkHeuristicBase stationTransmission (telecommunications)WirelessWireless networkDistributed computingPower (physics)Mathematical optimizationEngineeringTelecommunicationsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we explore the relay node (RN) placement problem in a heterogeneous wireless sensor network (WSN). The objective of the RN placement is to use a minimum number of additional RNs to enable the relaying of given traffic on existing nodes to the base station (BS) under the energy constraints. We assume RNs can adjust their transmission power according to the distance to the intended destination. To make best use of power adaptivity of RN, we propose two heuristic solutions, namely, independent placement with direct allocation (IPDA) and collaborative placement with locally optimal allocation decision (CPLOAD). Furthermore, a lower bound on the minimum number of additional RNs is provided. The effectiveness of our proposals is investigated through simulation using numerical examples.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.383
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnergy Efficient Wireless Sensor NetworksFrench-language works237,207