Comparative evaluation of six wireless sensor devices in a high ionizing radiation environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports the results of experimental studies of six different wireless sensor nodes and networks under a radiation environment with a dose rate of 20 K Rad (Si)/h. The wireless nodes evaluated are ZigBee, WirelessHART, ISA 100.11a, LoRa, and 433/915 MHz point‐to‐point devices made from commercial off‐the‐shelf (COTS) components. The experiments were carried out using a 60 Co gamma source, while the devices are at on‐power operating states, and their operating statuses have been continuously monitored to determine the first instance of failure and the rate of gradual degradation in terms of communication channel performance and quality of the wireless signals. Observations indicate that the different devices and networks exhibit varying levels of radiation tolerance. For example, some can only survive for less than one hour, but others are operating satisfactorily for several hours. Furthermore, before a device suffers a fatal hardware failure, the performance degradation progresses slowly. It is believed that this is the first time that such results are reported in the open literature. Their significance is that the results can provide some practical guidance to select the most suitable wireless devices for the design and construction of remote monitoring systems for high‐level radiation environments.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".