MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2761668687 · doi:10.1002/9781119226079.ch13

Cyber‐Physical Vulnerabilities of Wireless Sensor Networks in Smart Cities

2017· other· en· W2761668687 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

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSecurity in Wireless Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWireless sensor networkComputer scienceComputer securitySmart cityContext (archaeology)Cyber-physical systemWirelessData scienceTelecommunicationsComputer networkInternet of ThingsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Smart cities are the future cities that meet a set of technical and nontechnical criteria. It is obvious that smart cities require extensive implementation of information and communication technologies (ICTs). In particular, wireless sensor networks (WSNs) have big roles to play to support smart city operations. It requires large-scale deployments of WSNs around the city for sensing numerous events. A massive amount of information will then be collected from those WSNs for analyses and decision-making. The most challenging part is to secure information from various forms of attacks. Detection and prevention procedures in response to cyber-physical attacks are resource intensive. This chapter provides a tutorial overview of some specialized WSN applications and their cyber-physical vulnerabilities in the context of smart cities. It also includes a discussion on possible mitigation approaches.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.781
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSecurity in Wireless Sensor NetworksFrench-language works237,207