MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2172266266 · doi:10.1504/ijsnet.2009.029016

Energy conservation in clustered wireless sensor networks

2009· article· en· W2172266266 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sensor Networks · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEnergy Efficient Wireless Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's UniversityDalhousie UniversitySt. Francis Xavier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWireless sensor networkComputer scienceCluster analysisNode (physics)Energy (signal processing)Energy conservationNonlinear systemHomogeneousEnergy harvestingMathematical optimizationComputer networkMathematicsStatistical physicsElectrical engineeringArtificial intelligenceStatisticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, results from Wald's equation and stochastic geometry are applied to the analysis of the energy expended in a homogeneous clustered Wireless Sensor Network (WSN). We determine the optimum number of clusterheads for minimising the energy expended by a single-hop clustered WSN in transmitting data to a sink using nonlinear and linear aggregation models, and include error control. Our model makes it possible to determine the optimum number of clusters given the node electronic energy expended, the type of aggregation employed, the propagation loss and the network geometry. The effect of these parameters on the optimum number of clusterheads is analysed. The analytical model is verified with simulations. We observe that, in some networks, clustering is not beneficial for minimising network energy.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.900
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.227 · 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