MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200453904 · doi:10.1155/2021/1444024

Analysis of Security Attacks and Taxonomy in Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks

2021· article· en· W4200453904 on OpenAlex

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

VenueWireless Communications and Mobile Computing · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUnderwater Vehicles and Communication Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Moncton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceWireless sensor networkUnderwaterTaxonomy (biology)Computer securityComputer networkSecurity analysisOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks (UWSN) have gained more attention from researchers in recent years due to their advancement in marine monitoring, deployment of various applications, and ocean surveillance. The UWSN is an attractive field for both researchers and the industrial side. Due to the harsh underwater environment, own capabilities, and open acoustic channel, it is also vulnerable to malicious attacks and threats. Attackers can easily take advantage of these characteristics to steal the data between the source and destination. Many review articles are addressed some of the security attacks and taxonomy of the Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks. In this study, we have briefly addressed the taxonomy of the UWSNs from the most recent research articles related to the well‐known research databases. This paper also discussed the security threats on each layer of the Underwater Wireless sensor networks. This study will help the researchers design the routing protocols to cover the known security threats and help industries manufacture the devices to observe these threats and security issues.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.727
Threshold uncertainty score0.625

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.223 · 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