MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281681743 · doi:10.1145/3539668.3539678

Are WiFi Backscatter Systems Ready for the Real World?

2022· article· en· W4281681743 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

VenueGetMobile Mobile Computing and Communications · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Harvesting in Wireless Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBackscatter (email)ScalabilityComputer scienceThroughputRange (aeronautics)Scale (ratio)Energy consumptionReal-time computingTelecommunicationsComputer networkWirelessDatabaseElectrical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

WiFi backscatter communication has been proposed to enable battery-free sensors to transmit data using WiFi networks. The main advantage of WiFi backscatter technologies over RFID is that data from their tags can be read using existing WiFi infrastructures instead of specialized readers. This can potentially reduce the complexity and cost of deploying battery-free sensors. Despite extensive work in this area, none of the existing systems are in widespread use today. We hypothesize that this is because WiFi-based backscatter tags do not scale well, and their range and capabilities are limited when compared with RFID. To test this hypothesis, we conduct several real-world experiments. We compare WiFi backscatter and RFID technologies in terms of energy consumption, throughput, range and scalability.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.283
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.240 · 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