MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2776677798 · doi:10.1109/temc.2019.2957423

Review of the EMC Aspects of Internet of Things

2019· article· en· W2776677798 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 Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIoT Networks and Protocols
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsTroubleshootingElectromagnetic compatibilityInternet of ThingsWirelessComputer scienceElectromagnetic interferenceMIMOElectronic engineeringMulti-user MIMOSpurious relationshipComputer networkElectrical engineeringTelecommunicationsEngineeringEmbedded systemChannel (broadcasting)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wireless devices are the largest part of the Internet-of-Things (IoT) units. Radiated, such as specific absorption rate and spurious related issues are regulated by the standards bodies. The functionality performance will greatly influence IoT system stability, user experience, and cost. Radio receiver desensitization and coexistence aspects of IoT devices are discussed in this article. Measurement technologies are briefly reviewed for transmit/receive mode only of single-input single-output (SISO), and multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) devices, to provide a means of device performance evaluation and electromagnetic interference troubleshooting. An understanding of the electromagnetic compatibility aspects of the IoT and its measurement methods can help ensure the best user experience for ubiquitous wireless systems.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.315
Threshold uncertainty score0.700

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.217 · 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