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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".