MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2558104854 · doi:10.1109/powercon.2016.7754046

Compliance of IEEE 802.22 WRAN for field area network in smart grid

2016· article· en· W2558104854 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Vasudev Dehalwar, Akhtar Kalam, Mohan Lal Kolhe, Aladin Zayegh

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCognitive Radio Networks and Spectrum Sensing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersVictoria UniversityUniversity of Victoria
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer networkBackupSmart gridCognitive radioBase stationWiMAXSpectrum managementIEEE 802.11TelecommunicationsWirelessWireless networkEngineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Distributed power system network is going to be complex, and it will require high-speed, reliable and secure communication systems for managing intermittent generation with coordination of centralised power generation, including load control. Cognitive Radio (CR) is highly favourable for providing communications in Smart Grid by using spectrum resources opportunistically. The IEEE 802.22 Wireless Regional Area Network (WRAN) having the capabilities of CR use vacant channels opportunistically in the frequency range of 54 MHz to 862 MHz occupied by TV band. A comprehensive review of using IEEE 802.22 for Field Area Network in power system network using spectrum sensing (CR based communication) is provided in this paper. The spectrum sensing technique(s) at Base Station (BS) and Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) for detecting the presence of incumbent in order to mitigate interferences is also studied. The availability of backup and candidate channels are updated during “Quite Period” for further use (spectrum switching and management) with geolocation capabilities. The use of IEEE 802.22 for (a) radio-scene analysis, (b) channel identification, and (c) dynamic spectrum management are examined for applications in power management.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.293

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations15
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCognitive Radio Networks and Spectrum SensingFrench-language works237,207