MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161737785 · doi:10.1049/iet-com.2012.0415

Relay selection in cognitive radio networks with interference constraints

2013· article· en· W2161737785 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIET Communications · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRelayCognitive radioSelection (genetic algorithm)Computer scienceInterference (communication)Outage probabilityUnderlayExpression (computer science)Secondary sourceRelay channelComputer networkTelecommunicationsPower (physics)Signal-to-noise ratio (imaging)FadingArtificial intelligenceWirelessDecoding methods

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, the authors investigate the outage probability of underlay cognitive radio systems with relay selection. In particular, they consider a secondary multi‐relay network operating in the amplify‐and‐forward (AF) mode and only the ‘best’ relay is selected, which satisfies an index of merit. The proposed selection strategy takes into consideration the effect of primary user (PU) interference. That is, the authors assume that the secondary multi‐relay network is exposed to unwanted interference from a neighboring PU network. They derive a closed‐form outage probability expression and further present a thorough asymptotic diversity order analysis of the underlying scenario. A simulation study is presented to corroborate the analytical results and to have further insight into the performance of the proposed selection strategy.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.505

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.245 · 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