MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2754349741 · doi:10.1109/lwc.2017.2752161

3-D Placement of an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Base Station for Maximum Coverage of Users With Different QoS Requirements

2017· article· en· W2754349741 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

VenueIEEE Wireless Communications Letters · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUAV Applications and Optimization
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBase stationQuality of serviceWirelessBase (topology)Computational complexity theoryWireless network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The need for a rapid-to-deploy solution for providing wireless cellular services can be realized by unmanned aerial vehicle base stations (UAV-BSs). To the best of our knowledge, this letter is the first in literature that studies a novel 3-D UAV-BS placement that maximizes the number of covered users with different quality-of-service requirements. We model the placement problem as a multiple circles placement problem and propose an optimal placement algorithm that utilizes an exhaustive search (ES) over a 1-D parameter in a closed region. We also propose a low-complexity algorithm, namely, maximal weighted area (MWA) algorithm to tackle the placement problem. Numerical simulations are presented showing that the MWA algorithm performs very close to the ES algorithm with a significant complexity reduction.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.362
Threshold uncertainty score0.524

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.238 · 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