MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

IoT-based Recommendation Systems – An Overview

2020· article· en· W3091769066 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

Venue2020 IEEE International IOT, Electronics and Mechatronics Conference (IEMTRONICS) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceInternet of ThingsProcess (computing)RevenueRecommender systemQuality (philosophy)Data scienceService (business)Quality of servicePath (computing)World Wide WebTelecommunicationsComputer networkBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Internet of Things (IoT) has emerged in many industries, such as health care, transportation, agriculture, manufacturing, smart homes, to name a few. It paves the path for massive applications on the user level to enhance the quality of life or service, and on the decision-makers' level to provide a sustainable increase in revenue. IoT principally connects different physical objects (e.g., sensors) and enables them to communicate, collect, and share data. In the Era of IoT, Recommendation systems provide personalized recommendations based on the user's historical datasets collected from the IoT devices. These recommendations enable an efficient decision-making process by suggesting relevant products, resources, and information. This paper provides an overview of various multi-layers IoT architectures, and IoT-based recommendation systems with an emphasis on their advantages, disadvantages, application domains, and validation metrics for quality assessment.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.226 · 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