Ambient intelligence governance review: from service-oriented to self-service
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 current generation of connected devices and the Internet of Things augment people's capabilities through ambient intelligence. Ambient Intelligence (AmI) support systems contain applications consuming available services in the environment to serve users. A well-known design of these applications follows a service architecture style and implement artificial intelligence mechanisms to maintain an awareness of the context: The service architecture style enables the distribution of capabilities and facilitates interoperability. Intelligence and context-awareness provide an adaptation of the environment to improve the interaction. Smart objects in distributed deployments and the increasing machine awareness of devices and people context also lead us to architectures, including self-governed policies providing self-service. We have systematically reviewed and analyzed ambient system governance considering service-oriented architecture (SOA) as a reference model. We applied a systematic mapping process obtaining 198 papers for screening (out of 712 obtained after conducting searches in research databases). We then reviewed and categorized 68 papers related to 48 research projects selected by fulfilling ambient intelligence and SOA principles and concepts. This paper presents the result of our analysis, including the existing governance designs, the distribution of adopted characteristics, and the trend to incorporate service in the context-aware process. We also discuss the identified challenges and analyze research directions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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