MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020994149 · doi:10.1109/jsyst.2014.2334071

A Scalable Sensor Management Architecture Using BDI Model for Pervasive Surveillance

2014· article· en· W2020994149 on OpenAlexaff
Allaa R. Hilal, Otman Basir

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Systems Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScalabilityComputer scienceWireless sensor networkArchitectureDistributed computingUbiquitous computingComputer securityComputer networkHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent world events have amplified the need for improved safety and security to contend with natural and man-made threats. The universality and unpredictability of such threats have stimulated intense interest in smart pervasive surveillance systems. They are built by adopting smart sensor networks that cover large areas and can perform self-contained assessments of situations in the environment. However, such systems rely on a massive number of sensors with diverse capabilities but limited resources, e.g., power, processing, and storage. Thus, successful management of tasks hinges on the systems architecture. Sensor management architectures (SMAs) coordinate the sensor nodes and their resources in a manner that improves system control and situation awareness. This paper introduces a scalable and flexible SMA for many sensor management (SM) applications, particularly, pervasive surveillance. This novel SMA is called the extended hybrid architecture for SM (E-HASM), an architecture that combines the advantages of the holonic, federated, and market-based paradigms. The E-HASM models each node as an intelligent sensor by using the beliefs, desires, and intentions model and defines the interaction and cooperation among the nodes. The simulation results illustrate the performance of the E-HASM over a variety of security threats, background targets, and network sizes. The results prove that the proposed architecture is significantly more scalable and flexible than centralized architectures.

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)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.303 · 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
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

Citations8
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Systems JournalSame topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207