Exploring the Structure of IoT Data: A Symbolic Analysis Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the development of different kinds of techniques, especially the Internet of Things (IoT), a large amount of quantitative (either numeric or categorical) data have been generated, transmitted, and stored in the modern society. People hope to understand the interested phenomenon from the collected quantitative data by utilizing different data analysis methods. Exploring the structure of data (e.g., the cluster centers or prototypes) has always been a hot spot in the domain of data mining and knowledge discovery, yet it seems that the modeling and analyzing process still focus on a low-level abstraction of the data because normally, the structure found is only represented by some numeric data points. In this study, we highlight that a low-level abstraction may not be a user-friendly way for people to grasp the knowledge contained in the data. Instead, we explore the structure of the data from a perspective of symbolic analysis. Specifically, two modes of abstraction are proposed. In the vertical mode (i.e., values of each feature are abstracted), the numeric prototypes are characterized by the symbolic prototypes such that people could get rid of being stuck in minor details of each feature. In the horizontal mode (i.e., values of each prototype are abstracted), the linguistic summarization is used to describe all the features of each symbolic prototype such that people could immediately grasp the essential information conveyed in the symbolic prototype. We conduct comprehensive experimental studies on the publicly available data to illustrate the feasibility and validity of the proposed symbolic analysis process.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".