MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166029878 · doi:10.1109/icscs.2009.5412216

Coordinated motion control of mobile sensors in surveillance systems

2009· article· en· W2166029878 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed Control Multi-Agent Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersGovernment of Ontario
KeywordsComputer scienceMobile computingMobile telephonyControl (management)Motion controlModalitiesMotion (physics)Task (project management)Real-time computingDistributed computingMobile radioArtificial intelligenceTelecommunicationsEngineeringSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reviews coordinated motion control strategies of mobile sensors in mobile surveillance systems. Mobile surveillance systems include a vast array of mobile sensing nodes with varying sensing modalities that can sense continuously the volume of interest. These distributed nodes are capable of sensing, processing, mobilization and communication with other nodes. One of the fundamental problems of mobile surveillance systems is how to coordinate these distributed nodes in such a way that they can move together in concert. Based on the nature of the surveillance task, three coordinated motion control strategies are described. These strategies are direct control, intentional control and emergent control.

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)0.001
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 score0.867
Threshold uncertainty score0.547

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDistributed Control Multi-Agent SystemsFrench-language works237,207