MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094716077 · doi:10.3390/fi12110190

Fog Computing for Smart Cities’ Big Data Management and Analytics: A Review

2020· review· en· W3094716077 on OpenAlexaff
Elarbi Badidi, Zineb Mahrez, Essaïd Sabir

Bibliographic record

VenueFuture Internet · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersUnited Arab Emirates University
KeywordsComputer scienceSmart cityBig dataComputer securityElectricityTelecommunicationsEdge computingAnalyticsData scienceInternet of Things

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Demographic growth in urban areas means that modern cities face challenges in ensuring a steady supply of water and electricity, smart transport, livable space, better health services, and citizens’ safety. Advances in sensing, communication, and digital technologies promise to mitigate these challenges. Hence, many smart cities have taken a new step in moving away from internal information technology (IT) infrastructure to utility-supplied IT delivered over the Internet. The benefit of this move is to manage the vast amounts of data generated by the various city systems, including water and electricity systems, the waste management system, transportation system, public space management systems, health and education systems, and many more. Furthermore, many smart city applications are time-sensitive and need to quickly analyze data to react promptly to the various events occurring in a city. The new and emerging paradigms of edge and fog computing promise to address big data storage and analysis in the field of smart cities. Here, we review existing service delivery models in smart cities and present our perspective on adopting these two emerging paradigms. We specifically describe the design of a fog-based data pipeline to address the issues of latency and network bandwidth required by time-sensitive smart city applications.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations76
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFuture InternetSame topicIoT and Edge/Fog ComputingFrench-language works237,207