Investigating Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and Bluetooth Low-Energy Signal Characteristics for Integration in Vehicle–Pedestrian Collision Warning Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the study is to investigate the comparative field performance of Wi-Fi, Bluetooth Classic (Bluetooth) and Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) signal modes for integration in vehicle–pedestrian collision warning systems. The study compares these wireless signal modes to find out which one is most appropriate to be utilized in these systems and provides better results in terms of accuracy and functionality. Five factors including received signal strength indicator (RSSI)-distance relationship, rainfall effects on the signals, motion effects, non-line of sight effects and signal transmission rates were selected for evaluation. These factors were selected considering the requirements of vehicle–pedestrian collision warning systems and compared with each other based on experimental outcomes. The results of the experiments indicated the overall superiority of BLE mode over Wi-Fi and Bluetooth modes to be utilized in these systems. Application of this mode may provide the possibility of fast collision warnings thanks to low signal transmission intervals and high probability of simultaneous signal detections by multiple signals scanners. Moreover, the capability of this mode to accurately estimate distance and position is higher than Wi-Fi mode and not significantly different from Bluetooth mode.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".