MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2178465006 · doi:10.1109/pacrim.2015.7334890

Energy bugs in mobile devices: A survey

2015· article· en· W2178465006 on OpenAlexaff
Amine Demidem, Haytham Elmiligi, Fayez Gebali

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGreen IT and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsThompson Rivers UniversityUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoftware portabilityMobile deviceComputer scienceFlexibility (engineering)Embedded systemProcess (computing)Mobile computingBattery (electricity)Operating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Portable electronic devices, such as smartphones and tables, have become the most popular computing devices for end users. The portability, flexibility, and powerful hardware support make it easy to execute complex computation on a smartphone or process video applications on a tablet in a very efficient manner. However, users of these mobile devices are now facing problems with poor battery life. In this paper, we conduct a survey to explore the possible reasons behind battery drains in portable electronic devices. We also analyze energy bugs based on various criteria. This paper provides a comprehensive survey of energy bugs in mobile devices, which is an important step to help hardware designers and application developers eliminate energy bugs in hardware platforms and mobile applications.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.302
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGreen IT and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207