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
Abstract Internet of Things (IoT), as a typical representation of cyberization, enables the interconnection of physical things and the Internet, which provides intelligent and advanced services for industrial production and human lives. However, it also brings new challenges to IoT applications due to heterogeneity, complexity and dynamic nature of IoT. Especially, it is difficult to determine the sources of specified data, which is vulnerable to inserted attacks raised by different parties during data transmission and processing. In order to solve these issues, data provenance is introduced, which records data origins and the history of data generation and processing, thus possible to track the sources and reasons of any problems. Though some related researches have been proposed, the literature still lacks a comprehensive survey on data provenance in IoT. In this paper, we first propose a number of design requirements of data provenance in IoT by analyzing the features of IoT data and applications. Then, we provide a deep-insight review on existing schemes of IoT data provenance and employ the requirements to discuss their pros and cons. Finally, we summarize a number of open issues to direct future research.
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 | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.007 |
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