MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366283699 · doi:10.3390/electronics12081901

Security and Internet of Things: Benefits, Challenges, and Future Perspectives

2023· article· en· W4366283699 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueElectronics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsUniversity Canada West
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer securityInternet of ThingsVulnerability (computing)Computer scienceAuthorizationAuthentication (law)SecrecyInternet privacyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to the widespread use of the Internet of Things (IoT), organizations should concentrate their efforts on system security. Any vulnerability could lead to a system failure or cyberattack, which would have a large-scale impact. IoT security is a protection strategy and defense mechanism that protects against the possibility of cyberattacks that specifically target physically linked IoT devices. IoT security teams are currently dealing with growing difficulties, such as inventories, operations, diversity, ownership, data volume, threats, etc. This review examines research on security and IoT with a focus on the situation, applications, and issues of the present as well as the potential for the future. IoT network security has received greater attention from interdisciplinary and geographically scattered researchers in recent years. Data integrity, secrecy, authentication, and authorization should be guaranteed due to the large amount of data that flows across network devices. However, the area of IoT security still has a lot of room for growth.

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 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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.583
Threshold uncertainty score0.349

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.211 · 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