A Gamification Framework for Sensor Data Analytics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Internet of Things (IoT) enables connected objects to capture, communicate, and collect information over the network through a multitude of sensors, setting the foundation for applications such as smart grids, smart cars, and smart cities. In this context, large scale analytics is needed to extract knowledge and value from the data produced by these sensors. The ability to perform analytics on these data, however, is highly limited by the difficulties of collecting labels. Indeed, the machine learning techniques used to perform analytics rely upon data labels to learn and to validate results. Historically, crowdsourcing platforms have been used to gather labels, yet they cannot be directly used in the IoT because of poor human readability of sensor data. To overcome these limitations, this paper proposes a framework for sensor data analytics which leverages the power of crowdsourcing through gamification to acquire sensor data labels. The framework uses gamification as a socially engaging vehicle and as a way to motivate users to participate in various labelling tasks. To demonstrate the framework proposed, a case study is also presented. Evaluation results show the framework can successfully translate gamification events into sensor data labels.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".