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 OpenAlexafffund
Hai Wang, Abraham O. Fapojuwo

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations202
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Communications Surveys & TutorialsSame topicIoT Networks and ProtocolsFrench-language works237,207