MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3046489877 · doi:10.1049/iet-its.2020.0009

Predictive model for battery life in IoT networks

2020· article· en· W3046489877 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueIET Intelligent Transport Systems · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Battery Technologies Research
Canadian institutionsBrandon University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternet of ThingsBattery (electricity)Computer scienceEmbedded systemReal-time computing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The internet of things (IoT) is prominently used in the present world. Although it has vast potential in several applications, it has several challenges in the real‐world. One of the most important challenges is conservation of battery life in devices used throughout IoT networks. Since many IoT devices are not rechargeable, several steps to conserve the battery life of an IoT network can be taken using the early prediction of battery life. In this study, a machine learning based model implementing a random forest regression algorithm is used to predict the battery life of IoT devices. The proposed model is experimented on ‘Beach Water Quality – Automated Sensors’ data set generated from sensors in an IoT network from the city of Chicago, USA. Several pre‐processing techniques like normalisation, transformation and dimensionality reduction are used in this model. The proposed model achieved a 97% predictive accuracy. The results obtained proved that the proposed model performs better than other state‐of‐art regression algorithms in preserving the battery life of IoT devices.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.211 · 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