MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140326722 · doi:10.1109/dssns.2006.10

Reliable Energy Aware Routing In Wireless Sensor Networks

2006· article· en· W2140326722 on OpenAlexaff
Hossam Hassanein, Jing Luo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEnergy Efficient Wireless Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer networkWireless sensor networkRouting protocolFlooding (psychology)Network packetReservationReliability (semiconductor)Energy consumptionGeographic routingKey distribution in wireless sensor networksDynamic Source RoutingDistributed computingWirelessWireless networkEngineeringTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main purpose of a sensor network is information gathering and delivery. Therefore, the quantity and quality of the data delivered to the end-user is very important. The immense potential of wireless sensor networks (WSNs) has created a growing awareness of the need for reliability in such networks. A major concern in the design of WSN protocols, including those concerned with reliability, is energy efficiency. In this paper, we present a novel approach to reliability in WSNs. We introduce REAR (reliable energy aware routing), which is a distributed, on-demand, reactive routing protocol that is intended to provide a reliable transmission environment for data packet delivery. REAR introduces local node selection, path reservation and path request broadcasting delay to provide a reliable transmission environment to reduce retransmissions caused by unstable paths. The scheme efficiently utilizes the limited energy and available memory resources of sensor nodes. REAR attempts to take precaution against errors, instead of finding a solution after encountering the errors. Simulation experiments show that, by deploying an energy reservation scheme, REAR outperforms traditional schemes by establishing an energy-sufficient path from the sink to the source with special path request flooding, and also by distributing the traffic load more evenly in the network

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.185 · 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
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

Citations133
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnergy Efficient Wireless Sensor NetworksFrench-language works237,207