MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2943796356 · doi:10.1109/mcom.2019.1800624

Data and Service Management in Densely Crowded Environments: Challenges, Opportunities, and Recent Developments

2019· article· en· W2943796356 on OpenAlexaff
Moayad Aloqaily, Ismaeel Al Ridhawi, Haythem Bany Salameh, Yaser Jararweh

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Communications Magazine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaGnowit (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCloud computingService (business)Data as a serviceMobile deviceReplication (statistics)Computer networkData managementWorld Wide WebDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Densely crowded environments such as stadiums and metro stations have shown shortcomings when users request data and services simultaneously. This is due to the excessive amount of requested and generated traffic from the user side. Based on the wide availability of user smart-mobile devices, and noting their technological advancements, devices are not being categorized only as data/service requesters anymore, but are readily being transformed to data/ service providing network-side tools. In essence, to offload some of the workload burden from the cloud, data can be either fully or partially replicated to edge and mobile devices for faster and more efficient data access in such dense environments. Moreover, densely crowded environments provide an opportunity to deliver, in a timely manner, through node collaboration, enriched user-specific services using the replicated data and device-specific capabilities. In this article, we first highlight the challenges that arise in densely crowded environments in terms of data/service management and delivery. Then we show how data replication and service composition are considered promising solutions for data and service management in densely crowded environments. Specifically, we describe how to replicate data from the cloud to the edge, and then to mobile devices to provide faster data access for users. We also discuss how services can be composed in crowded environments using service-specific overlays. We conclude the article with most of the open research areas that remain to be investigated.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.008
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.160 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations100
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Communications MagazineSame topicMobile Crowdsensing and CrowdsourcingFrench-language works237,207