MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2611808382 · doi:10.1117/12.2271161

A terrain-based comparison of chaos modulation in wireless acoustic sensor networks

2017· article· en· W2611808382 on OpenAlexaff
Dasola A. Oluge, Henry Leung

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUnderwater Vehicles and Communication Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMultipath propagationTerrainWireless sensor networkNoise (video)WirelessChannel (broadcasting)WidebandModulation (music)Electronic engineeringReal-time computingComputer networkTelecommunicationsAcousticsArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The operating terrain, in which wireless sensor networks are deployed to function, has a potentially significant impact on the network performance. This is due to the inherent non-ideal channel conditions present in the operating environment such as multipath, noise and propagation delays. However, most simulations ignore these non-idealities thus yielding very optimistic results. This paper incorporates channel non-idealities such as propagation delays into a simulated wireless sensor network, and evaluates the effect on network performance. Given their inherent wideband characteristic, which makes them robust to non-ideal conditions such as multipath, chaos-based modulation schemes are a possible alternative to conventional spread spectrum techniques. By incorporating these non-ideal conditions, and evaluating the network performance when deployed in non-terrestrial terrains such as underwater acoustic localization, this paper contributes a more realistic simulation framework of the sensor network performance using the metrics of throughput and end-end delay, and a comparison of the results when different chaos modulation schemes are applied is presented.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.839
Threshold uncertainty score0.958

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicUnderwater Vehicles and Communication SystemsFrench-language works237,207