MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Optimized Clustering and Routing for Energy Efficiency in Smart Agricultural Wireless Sensor Networks

2025· article· W7130578214 on OpenAlexaff
P. Kanimozhi, M. V. Suganyadevi, P. Sumathi, S. Murugesan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSmart Agriculture and AI
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWireless sensor networkEfficient energy usePrecision agricultureThroughputKey distribution in wireless sensor networksCluster analysisRouting (electronic design automation)Agriculture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Innovative solutions for farming resource optimization, decision aid, and land monitoring are wireless sensor networks. Precision farming uses real-time field adjustments and crop health data to improve harvest efficiency. Spatially distributed WSNs (wireless sensor networks) will be used more in agriculture. Research has focused on en ergyefficiency techniques, which will become increasingly important as sensor nodes become more spread. Wireless communication may use plenty of energy. K-Medoid for clustering, Enhanced Artificial Bee Colony (EABC) for Adaptive Harris Hawk Optimization (AHHO) and cluster head selection for routing were developed for precision agriculture WSNs to save energy. Dispersed sensor nodes (DSN) This technique improves energy efficiency and network longevity works perfectly for dynamic agricultural and maximum-scale IoT deployments. Compared to CL-HPWSR, GCEEC, EW-DHOA, and LEACH, this algorithm is more reliable, scalable, and sustainable in smart agriculture applications. This improves farming efficiency and sustainability. Simulation results show that these methods achieves up to 23% lower energy consumption, 0.95 Mbps throughput (100 nodes), 98.7% packet delivery ratio, and 18$\mathbf{2 2 \%}$ longer network lifetime over existing approaches.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSmart Agriculture and AIFrench-language works237,207