MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2612726895 · doi:10.3390/s17051084

A Survey on an Energy-Efficient and Energy-Balanced Routing Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks

2017· article· en· W2612726895 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEnergy Efficient Wireless Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersUniversity of PretoriaNational Research Foundation
KeywordsRouting protocolComputer scienceEnergy consumptionComputer networkWireless sensor networkLink-state routing protocolEfficient energy useInterior gateway protocolRouting (electronic design automation)Routing domainDynamic Source RoutingSoftware deploymentDistributed computingEngineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wireless sensor networks (WSNs) form an important part of industrial application. There has been growing interest in the potential use of WSNs in applications such as environment monitoring, disaster management, health care monitoring, intelligence surveillance and defence reconnaissance. In these applications, the sensor nodes (SNs) are envisaged to be deployed in sizeable numbers in an outlying area, and it is quite difficult to replace these SNs after complete deployment in many scenarios. Therefore, as SNs are predominantly battery powered devices, the energy consumption of the nodes must be properly managed in order to prolong the network lifetime and functionality to a rational time. Different energy-efficient and energy-balanced routing protocols have been proposed in literature over the years. The energy-efficient routing protocols strive to increase the network lifetime by minimizing the energy consumption in each SN. On the other hand, the energy-balanced routing protocols protract the network lifetime by uniformly balancing the energy consumption among the nodes in the network. There have been various survey papers put forward by researchers to review the performance and classify the different energy-efficient routing protocols for WSNs. However, there seems to be no clear survey emphasizing the importance, concepts, and principles of load-balanced energy routing protocols for WSNs. In this paper, we provide a clear picture of both the energy-efficient and energy-balanced routing protocols for WSNs. More importantly, this paper presents an extensive survey of the different state-of-the-art energy-efficient and energy-balanced routing protocols. A taxonomy is introduced in this paper to classify the surveyed energy-efficient and energy-balanced routing protocols based on their proposed mode of communication towards the base station (BS). In addition, we classified these routing protocols based on the solution types or algorithms, and the input decision variables defined in the routing algorithm. The strengths and weaknesses of the choice of the decision variables used in the design of these energy-efficient and energy-balanced routing protocols are emphasised. Finally, we suggest possible research directions in order to optimize the energy consumption in sensor networks.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
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 score0.659
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.261 · 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