Evaluating Propagation Models for IIoT in Underground Mining: an Experimental Comparative Study in Underground Coal Mines
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Planning the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) systems for underground mining is critical in guaranteeing communication between nodes (sensor/actuator) and ensuring the effectiveness of their functionalities. Therefore, it is necessary to understand how electromagnetic waves disperse in under- ground environments through models that attempt to reproduce their behavior. This understanding is critical to designing and simulating efficient communications for IIoT systems requiring reliable and continuous data transmission. This paper evaluates two propagation models for underground mining tunnels and emphasizes the analysis of the materials that make up the side walls, the floor, and the roof. The analysis of the models is compared with experimental measurements of received power in the 433 MHz band made in coal mines in Colombia. The results, which have direct practical implications, show that the True Rays model generates a behavior similar to that observed in the experimental measurements, with determination coefficients above 74%. At the same time, we assessed the impact of the standard deviation of surface roughness on the accuracy of the received power predictions in the True Rays model.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it