MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2547764131 · doi:10.1145/2989275.2989279

LOGR

2016· article· en· W2547764131 on OpenAlexaff
Mauricio Bertanha, Richard W. Pazzi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEnergy Efficient Wireless Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWireless sensor networkComputer scienceNetwork packetComputer networkPosition (finance)Sink (geography)Global Positioning SystemPath (computing)Shortest path problemMobile radioDisseminationReal-time computingDistributed computingTelecommunicationsTheoretical computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data dissemination and node localization are key components of a Wireless Sensor Network (WSN), since the position of sensor nodes should be known so that applications can map events detected by those sensors. In this paper, we propose a joint localization algorithm that utilizes the position of a mobile sink, e.g., a vehicle, and of the neighbor nodes to estimate the position of nodes with no GPS modules. A data dissemination algorithm is proposed based on the well-known Greedy Geographic Forwarding (GGF) algorithm by combining the position of the neighbors and their remaining power when deciding where to send a packet to. The concept of bridges is also introduced, in which the sink compares its current position with previous positions and calculates whether there is a shortest path in order to create a bridge that will reduce the number of hops a packet has to travel through. According to our performance evaluation experiments, LOGR shows a slight improvement on network lifetime compared to GGF, while keeping similar delivery ratio performance. Including the power level of nodes in the forwarding decision equation tends to increase the path length to the sink. However, results show that bridges can minimize this increase by shortening the path.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score0.522

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnergy Efficient Wireless Sensor NetworksFrench-language works237,207