MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089406675 · doi:10.1080/13658816.2012.743663

LOST-Tree: a spatio-temporal structure for efficient sensor data loading in a sensor web browser

2012· article· en· W2089406675 on OpenAlexafffund
Chih‐Yuan Huang, Steve H.L. Liang

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Geographical Information Systems · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Management and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanarieMicrosoft Research
KeywordsSensor webWireless sensor networkComputer scienceMashupGeographyData miningReal-time computingWorld Wide WebWeb serviceComputer networkTelecommunicationsKey distribution in wireless sensor networksWeb 2.0

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present LOST-Tree, a new spatio-temporal structure to manage sensor data loading and caching in a sensor web browser. In the same way that the World Wide Web needs a web browser to load and display web pages, the World-Wide Sensor Web needs a sensor web browser to access distributed and heterogeneous sensor networks. However, most existing sensor web browsers are just mashups of sensor locations and base maps that do not consider the scalability issues regarding transmitting large amounts of sensor readings over the Internet. While caching is an effective solution for alleviating the latency and bandwidth problems, a method for efficiently loading sensor data1 from sensor web servers is currently missing. Therefore, we present LOST-Tree as a sensor data loading component that also manages the client-side cache on a sensor web browser. By applying LOST-Tree, redundant transmissions are avoided, enabling efficient loading with cached sensor data. We demonstrate that LOST-Tree is lightweight and scalable, in terms of sensor data volume. We implemented LOST-Tree in the GeoCENS sensor web browser for evaluation with a real sensor web dataset.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.789
Threshold uncertainty score0.665

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.006
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations7
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Geographical Information SystemsSame topicData Management and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207