MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2558334008 · doi:10.1109/iemcon.2016.7746349

Scalable and energy efficient software architecture for human behavioral measurement

2016· article· en· W2558334008 on OpenAlexaff
Osagie Osemwegie, Kevin G. Stanley

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGreen IT and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceScalabilityFidelityFlexibility (engineering)Data scienceLeverage (statistics)PhoneMobile phoneEfficient energy useHuman–computer interactionRisk analysis (engineering)Artificial intelligenceDatabaseEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding human behavior is central to many professions in engineering, health and the social sciences, and has typically been measured through surveys, direct observation and interviews. However, these methods are known to have drawbacks, including bias, problems with recall accuracy, and low temporal fidelity. Recently, a new tool has been employed to great effect: the smartphone. Modern mobile phones have a variety of sensors that can be used to find activity patterns and infer the underlying human behaviors, placing a heavy load on the phone's battery. Social science researchers hoping to leverage this new technology must carefully balance the fidelity of the data with the cost in phone performance. Crucially, many of the data collected are of limited utility because they are redundant or unnecessary for a particular study question. Previous researchers have attempted to address this problem by modifying the measurement schedule based on sensed context, but a complete solution remains elusive. In the approach described here, measurement is made contingent on sensed context and measurement objectives through extensions to a configuration language, allowing significant improvement to flexibility and reliability. Empirical studies indicate a significant improvement in energy efficiency with acceptable losses in data fidelity.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.862
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGreen IT and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207