MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889833276 · doi:10.1109/ficloud.2018.00064

Sensing as a Service Middleware Architecture

2018· article· en· W2889833276 on OpenAlexaff
Muhamed Alarbi, Hanan Lutfiyya

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Management and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMiddleware (distributed applications)Cloud computingService (business)Internet of ThingsSQLWireless sensor networkService discoveryArchitectureSmart objectsDistributed computingMessage oriented middlewareService-oriented architectureIntelligent sensorComputer networkWeb serviceDatabaseWorld Wide WebSoftware architectureSoftwareOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Internet of Things (IoT) is a concept that envisions the world as a smart space in which physical objects embedded with sensors, actuators, and network connectivity can communicate and react to their surroundings. However, IoT devices and consumers of data from these IoT devices can be owned by different entities which makes IoT data sharing challenging. Sensing as a Service is a concept that is influenced by the cloud computing term Every Thing as a Service. The proposed Sensing as a Service middleware enables consumers to access data generated by IoT devices owned by other entities. Consumers are charged for the amount of sensor data used. This paper addresses the architectural design of a cloud-based Sensing as Service middleware where IoT applications (consumers) can collect, and analyze sensor data through the middleware API. We propose multitenancy algorithms to make effective use of computing resources. In addition, we propose a SQL-Like language that can be used by IoT applications for sensing service discovery, and sensor stream analytics. The evaluation of the middleware implementation shows the effectiveness of the algorithms.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations11
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicData Management and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207