MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2295463652 · doi:10.1109/wcnc.2015.7127614

Balancing between robustness and energy consumption in underwater acoustic sensor networks

2015· article· en· W2295463652 on OpenAlexaff
Ruoyu Su, R. Venkatesan, Cheng Li

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUnderwater Vehicles and Communication Systems
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWireless sensor networkEnergy consumptionRetransmissionRobustness (evolution)Computer scienceReal-time computingNetwork packetSensor nodeSoftware deploymentData transmissionKey distribution in wireless sensor networksComputer networkUnderwaterEfficient energy useRangingWirelessEngineeringTelecommunicationsElectrical engineeringWireless network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, underwater acoustic sensor networks (UWSNs) are envisioned for different potential applications, ranging from long-term marine environmental monitoring, industrial instrumentation control, to military surveillance and security. Compared to wireless sensor networks (WSNs), energy-efficient data transmission becomes more critical in UWSNs due to non-rechargeable batteries of sensor nodes with limited amount of energies in long-term marine monitoring applications. Besides, in underwater acoustic communications, transmitting and receiving power levels dominate the energy consumption during the data transfer. Data packet retransmission caused by network deployment error increases the energy consumption and reduce the network lifetime. In this paper, we investigate a two-dimensional deployment strategy of UWSNs with a square grid topology. We present a mathematical model to study the deployment error of UWSNs. Based on this model, a parameter, i.e., α, is introduced to balance the network robustness and the energy consumption of sensor nodes. α is defined as the ratio of the transmission range of a sensor node to the distance between two closest adjacent sensor nodes. We report optimal values of α corresponding to this balance for different sizes of UWSNs.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUnderwater Vehicles and Communication SystemsFrench-language works237,207