MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2611837538 · doi:10.1109/percomw.2017.7917562

Effective role-assignment for participatory sensing systems

2017· article· en· W2611837538 on OpenAlexaff
Anubhuti Garg, Amiya Nayak

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceParticipatory sensingGlobal Positioning SystemSet (abstract data type)Real-time computingFocus (optics)SortingEnergy consumptionGreedy algorithmScheme (mathematics)Mobile deviceEnergy (signal processing)Data miningDistributed computingAlgorithmData scienceTelecommunicationsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mobile phones are equipped with a rich set of sensors which are useful in deploying various sensing activities. We focus on participatory sensing in which every participant carrying smartphone senses its environment and shares it with server. Most of the applications require location information to perform sensing activity. But, GPS drains considerable amount of energy if used for localization. So, a set of devices are chosen as broadcasters which turn on GPS, and the neighbouring devices rely on them to calculate their position. We propose an efficient energy model to minimize the power consumption of such a system. The existing scheme for finding optimal set of broadcasters is based on greedy algorithm. This is time efficient only when the number of participants are small. We propose a sorting based algorithm. This provides better time complexity for moderate and large data sets which is the actual case in real scenarios. We validate our work with extensive experiments on both real and synthetic datasets. Results demonstrate that our proposed approach effectively minimizes energy and saves 12-25% of the time for medium and large data sets.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score0.939

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMobile Crowdsensing and CrowdsourcingFrench-language works237,207