MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2560577884 · doi:10.1109/epec.2016.7771681

Renewable energy assisted base station collaboration as micro grid

2016· article· en· W2560577884 on OpenAlexaff
Faran Ahmed, Muhammad Naeem, Muhammad Iqbal, Alagan Anpalagan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Harvesting in Wireless Networks
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRenewable energyBase stationComputer scienceGridSmart gridEfficient energy useEnergy consumptionCellular networkFrame (networking)Intermittent energy sourceEnergy (signal processing)Environmental economicsComputer networkTelecommunicationsDistributed generationEngineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we present the case for cellular base stations enabled with renewable energy sources (RES) to be interconnected in a mini-smart grid (SG). Such an arrangement is envisaged to power the base stations (BSs) with clean sustainable energy as well as provide power to the local community. The technologies associated with RES as well as SGs have matured enough to be integrated with cellular NWs, for the benefit of both the network operator and the community. We also explore an energy cost minimization framework for a cellular network, by formulating a novel energy cooperation scheme that ensures optimal energy cooperation between green BSs. In our proposed economical and environment friendly frame work, the grid energy is minimized by optimal sharing of surplus green energy among the base stations. The intended scenario requires causal knowledge of harvested energy as well as traffic awareness by the network to workout energy demand of a BS and local grid. A realistic objective is developed, which entails energy borrowing from neighboring base stations offering their cheaper surplus energy, thereby reducing the overall energy cost of the network.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.807
Threshold uncertainty score0.412

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnergy Harvesting in Wireless NetworksFrench-language works237,207