A Comparison of Alternative Distributed Dynamic Cluster Formation Techniques for Industrial Wireless Sensor Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we investigate alternative distributed clustering techniques for wireless sensor node tracking in an industrial environment. The research builds on extant work on wireless sensor node clustering by reporting on: (1) the development of a novel distributed management approach for tracking mobile nodes in an industrial wireless sensor network; and (2) an objective comparison of alternative cluster management approaches for wireless sensor networks. To perform this comparison, we focus on two main clustering approaches proposed in the literature: pre-defined clusters and ad hoc clusters. These approaches are compared in the context of their reconfigurability: more specifically, we investigate the trade-off between the cost and the effectiveness of competing strategies aimed at adapting to changes in the sensing environment. To support this work, we introduce three new metrics: a cost/efficiency measure, a performance measure, and a resource consumption measure. The results of our experiments show that ad hoc clusters adapt more readily to changes in the sensing environment, but this higher level of adaptability is at the cost of overall efficiency.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".