MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2986118052 · doi:10.1109/tvt.2019.2950874

Optimal Altitude Selection of Aerial Base Stations to Maximize Coverage and Energy Harvesting Probabilities: A Stochastic Geometry Analysis

2019· article· en· W2986118052 on OpenAlex
Saeede Enayati, Hamid Saeedi, Hossein Pishro-Nik, Halim Yanıkömeroğlu

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 Vehicular Technology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUAV Applications and Optimization
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnergy harvestingBase stationStochastic geometryBackhaul (telecommunications)Computer scienceEnergy (signal processing)Mathematical optimizationTelecommunicationsMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper provides radio frequency (RF) energy harvesting and coverage probability analysis using stochastic geometry in a two-hop communication network. In the first hop, terrestrial base stations (TBSs) transmit RF energy and data to the aerial base stations (ABSs) and in the second hop, ABSs forward the data to the user. Numerical results show that the energy harvesting and coverage probabilities can be maximized at almost the same altitude of the ABSs with respect to the TBSs height for low TBSs densities. However, as the density of the backhaul nodes and the energy harvesting sub-timeslot increases, energy harvesting probability improves while coverage probability monotonically decreases by increasing the ABSs height.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.559
Threshold uncertainty score0.701

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.187 · 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