MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106091696 · doi:10.1109/glocomw.2010.5700317

Integration of component-based frameworks with sensor modelling languages for the sensor web

2010· article· en· W2106091696 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMiddleware (distributed applications)Component-based software engineeringWireless sensor networkInteroperabilityComponent (thermodynamics)Software engineeringJavaSensor webSoftware developmentProgramming languageSoftwareDistributed computingOperating systemKey distribution in wireless sensor networks

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The integration of sensor networks with service oriented architectures requires explicit representations of sensor information and interfaces. A strong candidate language for modelling sensor information is SensorML. SensorML as opposed to other sensor modelling languages supports a specification of a process model associated with a sensor system. As a way of facilitating interaction with other decision making software modules this paper presents a translation procedure that leverages the SensorML modelling language and maps this into Java Bean software components and events. Software components design is a common approach for supporting highlevel interoperability in software engineering. To demonstrate the value of this approach the translation procedure is compared against the more classical object-based approach used to develop a sensor web middleware platform. The results show that the use of SensorML to drive the software design of sensor components is simpler to that based on classical OO design.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.290
Threshold uncertainty score0.235

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.261 · 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