MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3015589435 · doi:10.1109/access.2020.2986329

Wearables and the Internet of Things (IoT), Applications, Opportunities, and Challenges: A Survey

2020· article· en· W3015589435 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooBritish Columbia Institute of Technology
FundersBritish Columbia Institute of Technology
KeywordsWearable computerInternet of ThingsComputer scienceWearable technologySmartwatchCluster (spacecraft)Internet privacyData scienceEmbedded systemComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Smart wearables collect and analyze data, and in some scenarios make a smart decision and provide a response to the user and are finding more and more applications in our daily life. In this paper, we comprehensively survey the most recent and important research works conducted in the area of wearable Internet of Things (IoT) and classify the wearables into four major clusters: (i) health, (ii) sports and daily activity, (iii) tracking and localization, and (iv) safety. The fundamental differences of the algorithms associated within each cluster are grouped and analyzed and the research challenges and open issues in each cluster are discussed. This survey reveals that although Cellular IoT (CIoT) has many advantages and can bring enormous applications to IoT wearables, it has been rarely studied by the researchers. This article also addresses the opportunities and challenges related to implementing CIoT-enabled wearables.

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 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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.238

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.185
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.105 · 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