Management Platforms and Protocols for Internet of Things: A Survey
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Internet of Things (IoT) management systems require scalability, standardized communication, and context-awareness to achieve the management of connected devices with security and accuracy in real environments. Interoperability and heterogeneity between hardware and application layers are also critical issues. To attend to the network requirements and different functionalities, a dynamic and context-sensitive configuration management system is required. Thus, reference architectures (RAs) represent a basic architecture and the definition of key characteristics for the construction of IoT environments. Therefore, choosing the best technologies of the IoT management platforms and protocols through comparison and evaluation is a hard task, since they are difficult to compare due to their lack of standardization. However, in the literature, there are no management platforms focused on addressing all IoT issues. For this purpose, this paper surveys the available policies and solutions for IoT Network Management and devices. Among the available technologies, an evaluation was performed using features such as heterogeneity, scalability, supported technologies, and security. Based on this evaluation, the most promising technologies were chosen for a detailed performance evaluation study (through simulation and deployment in real environments). In terms of contributions, these protocols and platforms were studied in detail, the main features of each approach are highlighted and discussed, open research issues are identified as well as the lessons learned on the topic.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it