MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089850870 · doi:10.1145/2413097.2413134

Guidelines to efficient smart home design for rapid AI prototyping

2012· article· en· W2089850870 on OpenAlexaff
Kévin Bouchard, Bruno Bouchard, Abdenour Bouzouane

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicContext-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHome automationComputer scienceSet (abstract data type)Component (thermodynamics)Key (lock)ArchitectureRapid prototypingEveryday lifeSmart environmentAmbient intelligenceHuman–computer interactionEmbedded systemEngineeringComputer securityInternet of ThingsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Advances in ubiquitous technology have moved us towards the dream of creating intelligent houses that can help human in their everyday life. The next step in the completion of this vision is to make major breakthroughs in artificial intelligence. In fact, it is the key component for allowing sensors and effectors to give useful services when it is appropriate. In consequence, researchers need to conduct more experiments in realistic setting (e.g. smart home). In order to face this challenge, many research teams try to build new experimental infrastructures without any background experience, guidance or even a real idea of their research needs and issues. Our team is composed of specialists in AI for cognitive assistance and has worked with four major smart home infrastructures. From that experience, we propose, in this paper, a set of guidelines for designing and implementing an efficient smart home architecture on both hardware and software perspective. This paper aims to be a major step toward the AI development (rapid prototyping) and smart home research. Moreover, we share our recent experience with the construction of a new smart home and clinical trials conducted at our laboratory with real Alzheimer's subjects.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0060.004
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.009

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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations33
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicContext-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsFrench-language works237,207