MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995112006 · doi:10.1109/cwit.2019.8929902

A Soft Metric for Assessing the Compliance of WLAN Devices

2019· article· en· W2995112006 on OpenAlexaff
Ammar Alhosainy, Ramy H. Gohary, Ioannis Lambadaris

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWireless Networks and Protocols
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetric (unit)Universal Software Radio PeripheralComputer scienceTestbedProbability distributionSet (abstract data type)Computer networkData miningSoftware-defined radioMathematicsStatisticsTelecommunicationsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of this paper is to derive a soft metric for assessing the compliance of the medium access mechanism of commercially available Wi-FiTMcertified units with the IEEE 802.11 standard. The metric is used in conjunction with data collected through a practical testbed based on a Universal Software Radio Peripheral (USRP). The metric derived in this paper captures three compliance aspects: 1- the statistical distribution of the backoff random number that underlies the medium access protocol used by the WiFi Unit Under Test (UUT); 2- the accuracy of the length of the silence period between frames; and 3- the adherence to prescribed transmission opportunity limits set by the standard. The assessment of the first two aspects relies on the Kullback-Leibler distance between probability distributions, whereas the assessment of the third aspect relies on evaluating the probability with which transmission thresholds set by the standards are exceeded. The soft metric proposed in this work is in the form of a single scalar, which enables the UUTs to be ranked based on their level of compliance.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWireless Networks and ProtocolsFrench-language works237,207