Confident Information Coverage Hole Prediction and Repairing for Healthcare Big Data Collection in Large-Scale Hybrid Wireless Sensor Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the Internet of Things (IoT) for smart healthcare applications, sensors collect a vast amount of healthcare data, while coverage significantly affects the Quality of Service (QoS). In wireless sensor networks (WSNs), the QoS as well as the network lifetime are dramatically degraded with the increment of coverage holes, especially in large-scale hybrid WSNs (LS-HWSNs) where big data are collected by thousands of sensors distributed in a wide monitored area. In a LS-HWSN, two crucial problems, i.e., covering the wide area without coverage holes and designing an energy-efficient manner for dispatching mobile sensors to repair coverage holes, need to be solved. We study the problems from the cutting point of confident information coverage hole repairing (CICHR). To this end, based on the confident information coverage (CIC) model, a CIC hole predicting (CICHP) algorithm, centralized energy-efficient repairing (CEER) algorithm, and distributed energy-efficient repairing (DEER) algorithm are developed. The CICHP algorithm can predict the prior information of CIC holes (CICHs) by using the period-by-period energy consumption information of sensor nodes. Based on the prior information of CICHs, two repairing algorithms: 1) CEER and 2) DEER can schedule mobile sensors to repair CICHs beforehand. Simulation results show that the proposed algorithms can significantly improve the QoS and extend the network lifetime of LS-HWSNs.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".