Ground Level Deployment of Wireless Sensor Networks: Experiments, Evaluation and Engineering Insight
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we are interested in characterizing the link properties of a wireless sensor network with nodes deployed at ground level. Such a deployment is fairly common in practice, e.g., when monitoring the vehicular traffic on a road segment or the status of infrastructures such as bridges, tunnels or dams. However, the behavior of off-the-shelf wireless sensor nodes in these settings is not yet completely understood. Through a thorough experimentation campaign, we evaluated not only the impact of the ground proximity on the wireless links, but also the impact of some parameters such as the packet payload, the communication channel frequency and the topography of the deployment area. Our results show that a ground-level deployment has a significant negative impact on the link quality, while parameters such as the packet size produce unexpected consequences. This allows us to parameter classical theoretical models in order to fit a ground-level deployment scenario. Finally, based on the lessons learned in our field tests, we discuss some considerations that must be taken into account during the design of communication protocols and before the sensor deployment in order to improve network performance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".