Process Automation in an IoT–Fog–Cloud Ecosystem: A Survey and Taxonomy
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The number of IoT sensors and physical objects accommodated on the Internet is increasing day by day, and traditional Cloud Computing would not be able to host IoT data because of its high latency. Being challenged of processing all IoT big data on Cloud facilities, there is not enough study on automating components to deal with the big data and real-time tasks in the IoT–Fog–Cloud ecosystem. For instance, designing automatic data transfer from the fog layer to cloud layer, which contains enormous distributed devices is challenging. Considering fog as the supporting processing layer, dealing with decentralized devices in the IoT and fog layer leads us to think of other automatic mechanisms to manage the existing heterogeneity. The big data and heterogeneity challenges also motivated us to design other automatic components for Fog resiliency, which we address as the third challenge in the ecosystem. Fog resiliency makes the processing of IoT tasks independent to the Cloud layer. This survey aims to review, study, and analyze the automatic functions as a taxonomy to help researchers, who are implementing methods and algorithms for different IoT applications. We demonstrated the automatic functions through our research in accordance to each challenge. The study also discusses and suggests automating the tasks, methods, and processes of the ecosystem that still process the data manually.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it