MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018142704 · doi:10.1145/2815347.2815348

On the Provisioning of Vehicle-Based Public Sensing Services

2015· article· en· W2018142704 on OpenAlexaff
Sherin Abdelhamid, Hossam S. Hassanein, Glen Takahara

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProvisioningComputer scienceSmart cityScope (computer science)Ubiquitous computingService (business)Process (computing)Public transportTelecommunicationsComputer securityHuman–computer interactionEngineeringInternet of ThingsTransport engineeringBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thanks to their abundant on-board resources, ubiquity, and mobility, smart vehicles can be considered major candidates for providing pervasive information services. With the diversity of in-vehicle sensors along with abundant storage, processing, and communication capabilities, smart vehicles can bring a wide scope of applications into action under the public sensing paradigm outstripping other candidate mobile resources such as smartphones. In this paper, we propose the vehicular public sensing (VPS) platform that aims at utilizing the abundant resources of smart vehicles for providing ubiquitous public sensing services. The VPS platform encompasses underlying components that address the recruitment, communication, sensing, reporting, and data analytics functionalities of a typical public sensing process. Taking into account different environmental and practical setups, the VPS platform provides potential adjustments and different approaches for the operation of each component. We anticipate that by engaging smart vehicles in providing ubiquitous sensing-based services, a plethora of information services and applications will be unleashed bringing a new era of service provisioning.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMobile Crowdsensing and CrowdsourcingFrench-language works237,207