MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2930977361 · doi:10.1111/exsy.12404

Dynamic framework to mining Internet of Things for multimedia services

2019· article· en· W2930977361 on OpenAlexaff
Yaser Khamayseh, Wail Mardini, J. William Atwood, Monther Aldwairi

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Systems · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersZayed University
KeywordsComputer scienceThe InternetWitnessClassifier (UML)MultimediaArtificial intelligenceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The rapid and unprecedented technological advancements are currently dominated by two technologies. At one hand, we witness the rise of the Internet of Things (IoT) as the next evolution of the Internet. At the other hand, we witness a vast spread of social networks that connects people together socially and opens the door for people to share and express ideas, thoughts, and information. IoT is overpopulated by a vast number of objects, millions of multimedia services, and interactions. Therefore, the search of the right object that can provide the specific multimedia service is considered as an important issue. The merge of these two technologies resulted in new paradigm called Social IoT (SIoT). The main idea in SIoT is that every object can mine IoT in search for certain multimedia service. We investigate the issue of friends' management in SIoT and propose a framework to manage friends' requests. The proposed framework employs several mechanisms to better manage friends' relationships. The proposed framework consists of friend selection, friendship removal, and an update module. It proposes a weight‐based algorithm and Naïve Bayes Classifier‐based algorithm for the selection component. Moreover, a random service allocation model is proposed to construct service‐specific network model. This model is then used in the simulation setup to examine the performance of different friends' management algorithms. The performance of the proposed framework is evaluated using simulation under different scenarios. The obtained simulation results show improvement over other strategies in terms of average degree of connections, average path length, local cluster coefficients, and throughput.

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)0.003
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert SystemsSame topicIoT and Edge/Fog ComputingFrench-language works237,207