MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4315781267 · doi:10.18280/i2m.210605

A Multi Task Allocation Based Time Optimization Framework Using Social Networks in Mobile Crowd Sensing

2022· article· en· W4315781267 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sasireka Veerapathiran, Shyamala Ramachandran

Bibliographic record

VenueInstrumentation Mesure Métrologie · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTask (project management)Scheduling (production processes)ScheduleCrowdsensingReal-time computingTask analysisOptimization problemCrowdsourcingGreedy algorithmDistributed computingEngineeringComputer securityAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The quality of data and its sensing cost is the important concern for task allocation in crowd sensing. The sensing capabilities of a device to send the collection of sensor data to a cloud requires crowd sensing in order to receive reliable data. Crowd sensing is used in many areas such as traffic monitoring, smart cities, health care, transportations, environmental monitoring and many more. Most of existing works are only based on assumptions in task scheduling about the number of candidate users and are mainly performed optimization of single task allocation. If the candidate users are few, then the completion of task with in the schedule can be difficult for many sensor applications. In this work, we proposed a social network-based task allocation scheme for the optimization of multi task allocation. The main idea of the proposed work is to maximize the task completion within the allocated schedule. It is evident that the task scheduling algorithms are NP-hard and we introduced a decreasing threshold task allocation (DTT) and fast greedy selections (FGS) algorithms along with Crow COOT Foraging Optimization (CCFO) algorithm to allocate the tasks parallelly with maximum efficiency. The proposed algorithms such as C-DTT (CCFO-DTT) and C-FGS (CCFO-FGS_ are used for the efficient allocation of tasks. The combination of these algorithms can be helpful in selecting the candidate users who will perform the completion of maximum tasks. Due to the selection of proper users in each round, the time consumption of the tasks to be completed is greatly reduced. The experimental results also indicates that the proposed work performs well in the optimization of multi task allocation than the other state of the art models.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.453
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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.259 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInstrumentation Mesure MétrologieSame topicMobile Crowdsensing and CrowdsourcingFrench-language works237,207