MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2547101057 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2016.7726794

Wireless sensor networks with pressure-based energy forecasting: A simulation study

2016· article· en· W2547101057 on OpenAlexafffund
James Rodway, Petr Musı́lek

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Energy Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWireless sensor networkComputer scienceReliability (semiconductor)Real-time computingEnergy managementSoftware deploymentWirelessWireless networkEnergy (signal processing)Node (physics)Reliability engineeringPower (physics)Computer networkEngineeringTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wireless sensor networks can be used to collect data in support of a number of tasks such as ecosystem or structural monitoring. When deployed in remote areas with little or no communication and power infrastructure, these networks face a number of power and reliability challenges. To collect adequate amount of data over long periods, operation of such networks must be managed to properly ration energy available in suitable storage devices and in the environment. In particular, predictive energy management can extend the duration a node is operational during its deployment and thus increase the quality of the collected data. This contribution presents a simulation of a small wireless sensor network that employs computationally inexpensive, short-term solar energy forecasts based on atmospheric pressure measurements as an input to a Takagi-Sugeno fuzzy control system. The proposed system shows improvement over a similar control scheme which only relies on knowledge of previously collected energy. Further improvements can be gained through optimization of the developed energy management scheme or by using more accurate energy availability prediction techniques.

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.878
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.175 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSmart Grid Energy ManagementFrench-language works237,207