A Taxonomy of Cluster-Based Routing Protocols for Wireless Sensor Networks
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent advances in wireless sensor technologies have resulted in development of low cost and low power sensor nodes. Wireless sensor networks (WSNs) have increasingly been used for remotely monitoring tasks. Limited capabilities of sensor nodes in terms of communication, computation and storage, present challenges for protocols designed for WSNs. Due to the severe energy constraint of sensor nodes, among the major concerns is the problem of designing efficient energy-aware routing protocols. A large number of routing protocols has been proposed in the literature. They basically differ depending on the application and network architecture used in their design. Cluster-based routing protocols for large-scale WSNs have some advantages as compared to a flat network topology. Clustering results in a reduced number of messages that propagate through the network in order to accomplish a sensing task. It also offers an improved power control. In this paper, we present clustering energy-aware routing protocols for WSNs, highlight their features and present a comparison of the protocols' features.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it