A comparative study of predicting the availability of power line communication nodes using machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Power Line Communication technology uses power cables to transmit data. Knowing whether a node is working in advance without testing saves time and resources, leading to the proposed model. The model has been trained on three dominant features, which are SNR (Signal to Noise Ratio), RSSI (Received Signal Strength Indicator), and CINR (Carrier to Interference plus Noise Ratio). The dataset consisted of 1000 readings, with 90% in the training set and 10% in the testing set. In addition, 50% of the dataset is for class 1, which indicates whether the node readings are optimum. The model is trained with multi-layer perception, K-Nearest Neighbors, Support Vector Machine with linear and non-linear kernels, Random Forest, and adaptive boosting (ADA) algorithms to compare between statistical, vector-based, regression, decision, and predictive algorithms. ADA boost has achieved the best accuracy, F-score, precision, and recall, which are 87%, 0.86613, 0.9, 0.8646, respectively.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".