Best-Suited Communication Technology for Maritime Signaling Facilities: A Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The remote monitoring of maritime signaling facilities is one of the marine navigation safety rules essential for ensuring global maritime traffic. Some maritime signaling facilities have not yet implemented remote monitoring systems. This challenge is posed by factors such as insufficient signal range, limited availability of electrical energy, or various economic reasons. Therefore, this paper reviews the current and relevant scientific literature on 10 communication technologies for maritime signaling facilities in the last two decades using PRISMA guidelines. PRISMA 2020 represents guidelines for conducting systematic review papers using mixed methods, including their applicability to various reviews. In addition, this paper analyzes the selection of the best-suited communication technology for communication between maritime signaling facilities. The results show that, initially, 214 papers met the specified criteria, and after applying the filtering, it was narrowed to 29 relevant papers for the research topic. Surprisingly, almost half of them were found in databases other than WOS, SCOPUS, and GOOGLE SCHOLAR. Also, LoRa WAN is the most energy-efficient and cost-effective option, with a consumption rate 2.14 times lower than AIS and NB-IoT. To summarize, it has been found that LoRa WAN represents the optimal communication technology for transmitting data from maritime signaling facilities across long distances.
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".