Ad-hoc messaging infrastructure for P2P communication in disaster management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditional means of communication rely on a centralized service provider, which may not be functional in the wake of a disaster. With a traditional cellular service provider, when somebody (Alice) wants to send a text message to someone else (Bob), the message is sent from Alice's phone to a cellular network and then finally to Bob. This process happens regardless if they are located on opposite sides of the world or are in the same room. In this paper, we present the design and implementation of a peer-to-peer (P2P) network which will route text messages along the shortest reliable path. By “shortest path” we mean that if Alice and Bob's phones are in wireless range of each other, the message passes only through their phones over the wireless link. If Alice and Bob are located further apart and their wireless radios are out of range, then a repeater node which can be reached by both Alice and Bob can be deployed and the message will pass through this node, again taking the shortest path. The network can be deployed with inexpensive off-the-shelf microcomputers, such as the Raspberry Pi, which can run off batteries in the event of a power outage. These nodes can be easily deployed and need not be trusted as the messages are encrypted and signed. During our tests, we were able to send text messages across a building over our mesh-network composed of five Raspberry Pi microcomputers running our software and using ad-hoc Wi-Fi for neighbour-to-neighbour links.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".