ML4IoT: A Framework to Orchestrate Machine Learning Workflows on Internet of Things Data
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) applications generate vast amounts of real-time data. Temporal analysis of these data series to discover behavioural patterns may lead to qualified knowledge affecting a broad range of industries. Hence, the use of machine learning (ML) algorithms over IoT data has the potential to improve safety, economy, and performance in critical processes. However, creating ML workflows at scale is a challenging task that depends upon both production and specialized skills. Such tasks require investigation, understanding, selection, and implementation of specific ML workflows, which often lead to bottlenecks, production issues, and code management complexity and even then may not have a final desirable outcome. This paper proposes the Machine Learning Framework for IoT data (ML4IoT), which is designed to orchestrate ML workflows, particularly on large volumes of data series. The ML4IoT framework enables the implementation of several types of ML models, each one with a different workflow. These models can be easily configured and used through a simple pipeline. ML4IoT has been designed to use container-based components to enable training and deployment of various ML models in parallel. The results obtained suggest that the proposed framework can manage real-world IoT heterogeneous data by providing elasticity, robustness, and performance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| 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