MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2802248265 · doi:10.1155/2018/5913981

On‐Demand Mobile Data Collection in Cyber‐Physical Systems

2018· article· en· W2802248265 on OpenAlexafffund
Liang He, Linghe Kong, Jun Tao, Jingdong Xu, Jianping Pan

Bibliographic record

VenueWireless Communications and Mobile Computing · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation and Mobility Innovations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaGovernment of Jiangsu ProvinceNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNatural Science Foundation of Jiangsu ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceData collectionQueueing theoryCyber-physical systemLatency (audio)Dimension (graph theory)Construct (python library)Real-time computingMobile deviceDistributed computingComputer networkTelecommunicationsWorld Wide WebOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The collection of sensory data is crucial for cyber‐physical systems. Employing mobile agents (MAs) to collect data from sensors offers a new dimension to reduce and balance their energy consumption but leads to large data collection latency due to MAs’ limited velocity. Most existing research effort focuses on the offline mobile data collection (MDC), where the MAs collect data from sensors based on preoptimized tours. However, the efficiency of these offline MDC solutions degrades when the data generation of sensors varies. In this paper, we investigate the on‐demand MDC; that is, MAs collect data based on the real‐time data collection requests from sensors. Specifically, we construct queuing models to describe the First-Come-First-Serve ‐based MDC with a single MA and multiple MAs, respectively, laying a theoretical foundation. We also use three examples to show how such analysis guides online MDC in practice.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.644
Threshold uncertainty score0.545

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWireless Communications and Mobile ComputingSame topicTransportation and Mobility InnovationsFrench-language works237,207