MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2732616350 · doi:10.1109/comst.2017.2721379

A Survey of Enabling Technologies of Low Power and Long Range Machine-to-Machine Communications

2017· article· en· W2732616350 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIoT Networks and Protocols
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceSoftware deploymentMachine to machinePower consumptionBandwidth (computing)Range (aeronautics)WirelessTelecommunicationsComputer networkPower (physics)Computer securityInternet of ThingsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Low power and long range machine-to-machine (M2M) communication techniques are expected to provide ubiquitous connections for the wireless devices. In this paper, three major low power and long range M2M solutions are surveyed. The first type of solutions is referred to as the low power wide area (LPWA) network. The design of the LPWA techniques features low cost, low data rate, long communication range, and low power consumption. The second type of solutions is the IEEE 802.IIah which features higher data rates using a wider bandwidth than the LPWA-based solutions. The third type of solutions is operated under the cellular network infrastructure. Based on the analysis of the pros and cons of the enabling technologies of the surveyed M2M solutions, as well as the corresponding deployment strategies, the gaps in knowledge are identified. The paper also presents a summary of the research directions for improving the performance of the surveyed low power and long range M2M communication technologies.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.396
Threshold uncertainty score0.948

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0040.001
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.267 · 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