MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896952984 · doi:10.1109/tii.2018.2864225

Guest Editorial Fog Computing for Industrial Applications

2018· editorial· en· W2896952984 on OpenAlexaff
Lei Shu, Gerhard P. Hancke, Der‐Jiunn Deng, Chunsheng Zhu, Mithun Mukherjee

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics · 2018
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCloud computingComputer scienceBottleneckDistributed computingFog computingLatency (audio)WirelessQuality of serviceUtility computingIndustrial InternetInternet of ThingsComputer networkEmbedded systemTelecommunicationsCloud computing securityOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The papers in this special section examine the use of fog computing applications in industrial electronics. Due to the increased number of connected things in industrial applications, the growing volume and velocity of Internet of Things (IoTs) data exchange urge for more and more communication resources, leading to the bottleneck in terms of data processing, data latency, and traffic overhead. Fog computing emerges as an alternative for traditional cloud computing to support geographically distributed, latency-sensitive, and QoS-aware IoT applications while reducing the burden of data centers in traditional cloud computing. In particular, fog computing with the features (e.g., low latency, location awareness, and capacity of processing large number of nodes with wireless access) to support heterogeneity and real-time applications is an attractive solution to delay- and resource-constraint large-scale industrial applications. However, with the benefits of fog computing, the research challenges arise regarding fog computing for industrial applications.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.472
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0040.004
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.243 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Industrial InformaticsSame topicIoT and Edge/Fog ComputingFrench-language works237,207