MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376608856 · doi:10.1007/s42979-023-01815-z

Quality and Security Frameworks for IoT-Architecture Models Evaluation

2023· article· en· W4376608856 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

VenueSN Computer Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à ChicoutimiÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArchitectureComputer scienceReference architectureQuality (philosophy)Database-centric architectureApplications architectureEnterprise architecture frameworkInternet of ThingsEnterprise information security architectureSoftware engineeringView modelReference modelComputer securitySoftware architectureSoftware

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The concept behind IoT is as powerful as it is complex, and for the entities and modules in the IoT solution to mesh together perfectly, they all must be part of a well-thought-out structure. That is where accomplishing a deep understanding, IoT architecture becomes paramount given the complexity of IoT domains and platforms. In this paper, we present a comparative analysis of IoT-architecture models based on IoT reference architecture proposed by ISO. Herewith, the paper aims at establishing a common grounding and language based on the business adoption reference IoT architecture vis-á-vis a standard model ISO/IEC 30141. We built an Analysis Architecture Quality Security Model-AAQSM based on quantitative metrics and scoring methods we have defined in reference to criteria standards. AAQSM helped unify evaluation metrics critical to fulfilling specific quality and security attribute requirements and classify architecture models by score.

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)0.005
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.919
Threshold uncertainty score0.681

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.287 · 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