MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089016833 · doi:10.1109/mobserv.2014.23

Management of Mobile Data in a Crop Field

2014· article· en· W2089016833 on OpenAlexafffund
Richard K. Lomotey, Ralph Deters

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsComputer scienceMobile technologyMobile computingMobile databaseData accessMobile broadbandMobile WebDatabaseTelecommunicationsWirelessMobile stationBase station

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The diversity of the mobile landscape is shaping the business outlook of several enterprises including the agricultural sector. Today, there are several opportunities that can be harnessed in terms of productivity, mechanization, revenue, and so on when mobile technology is combined with agriculture technology. Especially, with mobile apps, agriculturists such as crop farmers can have access to timely information that can aid them in making decisions on pesticide information control. The problem however is that, mobile devices communicate over wireless mediums that can be unreliable. This situation causes the back-end to be unreachable from the mobile, and subsequently denial of service when the farmers want to access information at the crop field. This work proposes a reliable distributed mobile architecture that enables crop farmers to access timely information. Firstly, we designed a three layered architecture that comprises a middleware to enable the farmers to access the data when they have access to Wi-Fi or 3.5/4G. Secondly, the mobile node is designed to hoard the data in a NoSQL database to prevent frequent requests being sent to the back-end and to ensure offline accessibility. Finally, when the farmers are offline, they are facilitated to communicate with their friends through Bluetooth in order to synchronize the most up to date information. Preliminary tests show that the proposed system is reliable in terms of the management of the mobile data.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score0.199

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0010.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations19
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIoT and Edge/Fog ComputingFrench-language works237,207