MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2502638135 · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2016.08.023

Using Provenance and CoAP to track Requests/Responses in IoT

2016· article· en· W2502638135 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

VenueProcedia Computer Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicScientific Computing and Data Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTracingTransparency (behavior)Key (lock)InferenceFocus (optics)ProvenanceThe InternetInternet of ThingsReliability (semiconductor)Component (thermodynamics)World Wide WebComputer securityData scienceArtificial intelligenceOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Until recently, not much attention has been drawn to the need to provide documentary evidence for ensuring reliability, transparency and, most importantly, tracing the source of requests/responses in the Internet of Things. The knowledge of provenance is considered as a key component in establishing the above-mentioned issues. Most research, to a large extent, focus on requesting data, which is based on user inference and decision making, by utilising provenance information. However, little or nothing has been done regarding requests and responses and, most importantly, from the machine perspective. Consequently, this paper proposes a light-weight prototype system for tracing the source of requests/responses using provenance information over CoAP in the Internet of Things. We also provide performance evaluation of the prototypic system using metrics such as response time (ms) and throughput (KB/s). Finally, findings from our experiment are presented and discussed.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.945
Threshold uncertainty score0.864

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.218
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.204 · 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