MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2964388139 · doi:10.1017/dsi.2019.211

Aspects of Body Metrics Data Management in the Long Term for the European Fitness Industry

2019· article· en· W2964388139 on OpenAlexaff
Julia Guérineau, Kousay Samir, Marvin Richrath, Kristin Paetzold, Joaquin Montero

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ... International Conference on Engineering Design · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDigital Transformation in Industry
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDigital transformationWearable computerInternet of ThingsData scienceWearable technologySet (abstract data type)Data managementProduct (mathematics)Process managementBusinessWorld Wide WebDatabaseEmbedded system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The dawn of the fourth industrial revolution, mostly known through the German initiative “Industrie 4.0”, builds on a set of technologies emerging from software and information and communication technologies (ICT); paired with the growth of the Internet-of-Things (IoT), the so-called “smart products” are expanding on the market. These smart products integrate data collection and processing capacities. Additionally, the collected data have their own lifecycle, and can be classified as sensitive data. In that sense, companies developing hardware products may need support to step in “smart products” development. Digital transformation strategy is a possible overall support for companies. However, regarding smart product development and IoT data management, no studies to date have addressed formalized guidelines to support companies. This article proposes a set of guidelines focusing on IoT data management to support hardware companies in their transformation towards smart products. The proposed guidelines are exemplified on a fitness industry case which is using wearable devices collecting body metrics, considered as sensitive data.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.720
Threshold uncertainty score0.423

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the ... International Conference on Engineering DesignSame topicDigital Transformation in IndustryFrench-language works237,207