An energy‐efficient history‐based routing scheme for opportunistic 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
Summary In opportunistic networks (Oppnets), nodes rely on contact opportunities between them to exchange information with each other. Routing and forwarding in Oppnets remains a challenging task because of the limited energy and bandwidth constraints. Various routing protocols for Oppnets have been proposed in the literature, but only few of them have explicitly investigated the energy issue. In this paper, some improvements in the already existing history‐based prediction for routing protocol for infrastructure‐less Oppnets (so‐called HBPR) is suggested so as to make it energy efficient. The proposed energy‐efficient HBPR protocol (EHBPR) addresses the energy constraints in HBPR and reduces the number of packets transferred in the network, which in turn results to a reduction in the nodes' energy consumption. Through simulations, the performance of EHBPR in terms of energy consumption is compared against the HBPR and the energy‐efficient n‐epidemic routing protocol. The results show that (1) EHBPR consumes 14.66% less energy than HBPR (respectively 13.14% less energy than n‐epidemic); (2) EHBPR generates 67.4% less dead nodes compared with HBPR (resp. 66.33% less dead nodes compared to n‐epidemic); and (3) EHBPR yields 77.86% less overhead ratio compared with HBPR (resp. 84.49% less overhead ratio compared with n‐epidemic). Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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