MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312759888 · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-18872-5_17

Low-Code Internet of Things Application Development for Edge Analytics

2022· book-chapter· en· W4312759888 on OpenAlexaff
Hafiz Ahmad Awais Chaudhary, Ivan Guevara, Jobish John, Amandeep Singh, Tiziana Margaria, Dirk Pesch

Bibliographic record

VenueIFIP advances in information and communication technology · 2022
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicContext-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
FundersScience Foundation IrelandEuropean Commission
KeywordsAnalyticsComputer sciencePython (programming language)Software analyticsSoftware deploymentData scienceSoftware engineeringInternet of ThingsWorld Wide WebSoftwareSoftware developmentSoftware development processOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Internet of Things (IoT) applications combined with edge analytics are increasingly developed and deployed across a wide range of industries by engineers who are non-expert software developers. In order to enable them to build such IoT applications, we apply low-code technologies in this case study based on Model Driven Development. We use two different frameworks: DIME for the application design and implementation of IoT and edge aspects as well as analytics in R, and Pyrus for data analytics in Python, demonstrating how such engineers can build innovative IoT applications without having the full coding expertise. With this approach, we develop an application that connects a range of heterogeneous technologies: sensors through the EdgeX middleware platform with data analytics and web based configuration applications. The connection to data analytics pipelines can provide various kinds of information to the application users. Our innovative development approach has the potential to simplify the development and deployment of such applications in 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score0.838

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIFIP advances in information and communication technologySame topicContext-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsFrench-language works237,207