MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2770526968 · doi:10.21307/ijssis-2017-836

Standard Arpu Calculation Improvement Using Artificial Intelligent Techniques

2015· article· en· W2770526968 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

VenueInternational Journal on Smart Sensing and Intelligent Systems · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
Canadian institutionsAlgonquin College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRevenueDuration (music)Quality (philosophy)Service (business)Software

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

abstract Recognizing how developing browsing behaviour could result in greater return for service providers through more efficient data usage without compromising Quality of Service (QoS), this paper proposes a new innovative model to describe the distribution and occurrence of behavioural errors in data usage models. We suggest: a) that the statistics of behavioural errors can be described in terms of locomotive inefficiencies, which increases error probability depending on the time elapsed since the last occurrence of an error; b) that the distribution of inter-error intervals can be approximated by power law and the relative number of errors. Comparing immersive similarities of data usage and foraging behaviours according to the Levy-Flight hypothesis, the length of the usage can be feasibly increased with less errors and eventually increase average revenue per user (ARPU). The validity of the concept is demonstrated with the aid of experimental data obtained from test software called Learn-2-Fly which sought to make browsing behaviours more efficient through user responses to stimuli created by an artificially intelligent engine. Although there were limitations on the scope of this test, a noticeable change in the user browse duration occurred over the duration of testing periods, with test subjects spending more time browsing and reacting to intended visual stimuli. The study establishes the opportunity to provide a higher quality of service to the end-user, whilst also offering a dynamic opportunity to increase revenue streams. Further consequences, refinements, and future works of the model are described in the body of the paper

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.253 · 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