MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143804513 · doi:10.1145/2379756.2379759

WoTKit

2012· article· en· W2143804513 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Blackstock, Rodger Lea

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeb of ThingsComputer scienceVariety (cybernetics)Set (abstract data type)World Wide WebInternet privacyInternet of ThingsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this position paper, we discuss our experiences with a lightweight Web of Things (WoT) toolkit and use those experiences to explore what an effective WoT toolkit looks like. We argue that while the WoT community has experimented, like us, with a variety of toolkits, it hasn't yet found one that appeals sufficiently to a broad range of developers. This failure, we believe, is hindering the adoption of the WoT and the growth of the community. We conclude the paper with a set of open questions, which, although not exhaustive, are aimed at opening up a community discussion on the needs of developers and how best the community can meet those needs and so further the adoption of the WoT. In essence, we believe that the time may be right to begin to agree on some basic functionality and approaches to WoT toolkits.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.876
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0000.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.211 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations24
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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