MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2546086929 · doi:10.1109/acssc.2007.4487377

Space-Time Coding versus Repetition Coding for Free-Space Optical Communication

2007· article· en· W2546086929 on OpenAlex
Majid Safari, Murat Uysal

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

VenueConference record/Conference record - Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems, & Computers · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptical Wireless Communication Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFadingCoding (social sciences)Block codeComputer scienceCoding gainAntenna diversitySpatial modulationFree-space optical communicationTime diversityTransmit diversityOptical communicationTelecommunicationsAlgorithmElectronic engineeringDecoding methodsMIMOOpticsPhysicsMathematicsChannel (broadcasting)WirelessEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we investigate spatial diversity techniques for free-space optical (FSO) links with intensity modulation and direct detection (IM/DD) over log-normal atmospheric turbulence-induced fading channels. We consider the deployment of space-time block codes and repetition codes. Our performance analysis demonstrates that although both schemes are able to extract full diversity, repetition codes outperform their counterparts. The performance gap increases as the number of transmit apertures increases. Our findings clearly point out that deployment of space-time coding is not necessary for a FSO IM/DD link.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.924
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.219 · 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