MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904538181 · doi:10.1109/tim.2018.2882218

Using the Cloud to Improve Sensor Availability and Reliability in Remote Monitoring

2018· article· en· W2904538181 on OpenAlexaff
Boon-Yaik Ooi, Woan Lin Beh, Wai‐Kong Lee, Shervin Shirmohammadi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality Monitoring and Forecasting
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)Cloud computingComputer scienceWireless sensor networkReal-time computingReliability engineeringFault detection and isolationMasking (illustration)Fault (geology)Distributed computingData miningPower (physics)EngineeringComputer networkArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although there have been significant advancements in low-power remote sensors in recent years, the challenge of sensor availability and data reliability in remote monitoring applications still persists. The fault and failure of sensors will affect the reliability of the monitored data and subsequently the adverse effect will inevitably propagate itself to the data analytics stage. There are many existing solutions focusing on improving sensor nodes to enhance data reliability and couple it with various energy harvesting techniques to prolong the availability of sensor nodes. This paper presents a complementary solution to these existing solutions by analyzing the correlation between data from different sensor nodes using cloud computing resources. The discovered relationship between the sensor nodes can then be used to improve data reliability and availability of sensor nodes. Performance evaluations using real data sets show that there are indeed relationships between the collected data, and through these discovered relationships the fault detection and fault masking methods outperform conventional approaches such as autoregressive-integrated moving average. In addition, this paper also proposes an approach to extend operation of sensor nodes duration through the discovered relationships, with experiments showing promising results.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations16
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and MeasurementSame topicAir Quality Monitoring and ForecastingFrench-language works237,207