MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3175563007 · doi:10.1109/mic.2021.3093924

Revisiting the Arguments for Edge Computing Research

2021· preprint· en· W3175563007 on OpenAlexaff
Blesson Varghese, Eyal de Lara, Aaron Yi Ding, Cheol-Ho Hong, Flavio Bonomi, Schahram Dustdar, Paul Harvey, Peter Hewkin, Weisong Shi, Mark Thiele, Peter Willis

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Internet Computing · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersRoyal Society
KeywordsSovereigntyEdge computingComputer scienceEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionPolitical scienceData scienceComputer securityTelecommunicationsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article argues that low latency, high bandwidth, device proliferation, sustainable digital infrastructure, and data privacy and sovereignty continue to motivate the need for edge computing research even though its initial concepts were formulated more than a decade ago.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.027
Scholarly communication0.0140.033
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0140.029
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Internet ComputingSame topicIoT and Edge/Fog ComputingFrench-language works237,207