MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164098509 · doi:10.1109/lcn.2009.5355000

The impact of discrete clock on time synchronization in wireless sensor networks

2009· article· en· W2164098509 on OpenAlexaff
Jing Feng, Richard W. Pazzi, Azzedine Boukerche

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Time Synchronization Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWireless sensor networkClock synchronizationComputer scienceSynchronization (alternating current)Clock driftKey distribution in wireless sensor networksReal-time computingWirelessWireless networkSelf-clocking signalComputer networkClock skewChannel (broadcasting)JitterTelecommunicationsClock signal

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As in many other distributed systems, time synchronization is an important service in wireless sensor networks. Most wireless sensor network applications are targetted at retrieving information from surrounding environments. In many situations, the temporal property of a physical event is critical to wireless sensor network applications. There are many time synchronization techniques for wireless sensor networks in literature. However, all of these techniques are based on continuous clock model, which cannot best describe the characteristics of system time in wireless sensor networks. In this paper, we propose a novel discrete clock model. This model is introduced by a formal definition and the impact of using discrete clock in time synchronization for wireless sensor networks is analyzed. A novel clock parameter estimation technique is also presented, which is based on the discrete clock model. Furthermore, the performance of the proposed technique is verified by simulation. According to our simulation, the proposed technique can achieve same synchronization precision with less message exchanges than existing protocols.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNetwork Time Synchronization TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207