MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2533798807 · doi:10.1109/tnb.2016.2620339

The Effect of Two Receivers on Broadcast Molecular Communication Systems

2016· article· en· W2533798807 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

VenueIEEE Transactions on NanoBioscience · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMolecular Communication and Nanonetworks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMolecular communicationTransmitterComputer scienceBit error rateCommunications systemSensitivity (control systems)Theoretical computer scienceTopology (electrical circuits)AlgorithmTelecommunicationsMathematicsElectronic engineeringChannel (broadcasting)EngineeringCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Molecular communication is a paradigm that utilizes molecules to exchange information between nano-machines. When considering such systems where multiple receivers are present, prior work has assumed for simplicity that they do not interfere with each other. This paper aims to address this issue and shows to what extent an interfering receiver, [Formula: see text], will have an impact on the target receiver, [Formula: see text], with respect to Bit Error Rate (BER) and capacity. Furthermore, approximations of the Binomial distribution are applied to reduce the complexity of calculations. Results show the sensitivity in communication performance due to the relative location of the interfering receiver. Critically, placing [Formula: see text] between the transmitter [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] causes a significant increase in BER or decrease in capacity.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.798
Threshold uncertainty score0.297

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.214 · 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