MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122529337 · doi:10.1109/access.2021.3054575

Smart Homes: How Much Will They Support Us? A Research on Recent Trends and Advances

2021· article· en· W3122529337 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

VenueIEEE Access · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersDeanship of Scientific Research, King Saud University
KeywordsVariety (cybernetics)Computer scienceInternet of ThingsField (mathematics)Data scienceEveryday lifeThe InternetWork (physics)TelecommunicationsKnowledge managementComputer securityWorld Wide WebEngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The advances in the Internet of Things (IoT) provide several chances to develop a variety of innovations supporting smart home users in several industries including healthcare, energy management, etc. Ubiquitous support by intelligent appliances at modern homes, which constantly work to gather information can help us to solve everyday issues. In this article, we present a comparative study of recent advances in smart home development. The study aims to present the main trends in this field. During the analysis of the research reports and patents, we identify the propositions that constitute the main research streams. Through extensive analysis, we provide an outlook on the wide spectrum of the proposed solutions. We also analyze the main market to present which publishers are leading with the innovative science in this field. We also show the leaders of science and technology in the World. Finally, we define the ratio of the developments and outline the next stage of the development in the smart home industry.

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 categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.909
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.292 · 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