MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155361910 · doi:10.1109/sensorcomm.2008.86

Energy Efficient Selection of Computing Elements in Wireless Sensor Networks

2008· article· en· W2155361910 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Steven Corroy, Jan Beiten, Junaid Ansari, Heribert Baldus, Petri Mähönen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEnergy Efficient Wireless Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institute of Steel Construction
KeywordsComputer scienceWireless sensor networkEnergy consumptionNode (physics)Key distribution in wireless sensor networksSensor nodeWirelessEfficient energy useComputationData transmissionData processingWireless networkEmbedded systemComputer networkDistributed computingTelecommunicationsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A wide range of wireless sensor network applications are characterized by local processing of the sensed data and only meager data communication requirements. Indeed, because sensor nodes are battery powered and wireless communication bears a high energy cost, data transmission can be traded for on-the-node computation to extend node and network lifetime. Furthermore, the energy consumption can be reduced significantly by selecting and realizing the application on an appropriate processing element. In this article, we propose a new statistical technique for energy consumption estimation for a specific application on various platforms. We have empirically verified the methodology on various classes of embedded processors commonly used in sensor nodes. The methodology can also be applied to multiprocessor platforms. Our solution is not only capable to achieve high accuracy but also facilitates the application developer to evaluate different platforms without actually implementing the application on each of these platforms. Our experimental evaluation results for various platforms will help to understand the implications of using different processing elements and their effects on the lifetime of 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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.511
Threshold uncertainty score0.869

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnergy Efficient Wireless Sensor NetworksFrench-language works237,207