A case study of environmental considerations and opportunities in cyber physical systems
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Cyber Physical Systems (CPS) are becoming more ubiquitous, complex and powerful as well as more and more present in our daily life. The inherent benefit and comfort come with an environmental impact at every step of their life‐cycle. This impact is significant and unfortunately often ignored today. As cyber‐physical systems tend to be ‘invisible’, there is a need for awareness of the underlying infrastructure and required resources, early in the design phases. In this article, the environmental impact considerations in the early stages of the implementation and opportunities to improve design choices with a people‐planet‐system perspective are discussed. The authors discuss the aspects related to system configuration, data management and the overall goal and functionalities supported by the CPS. Through a specific smart home case, the potential of considering life‐cycle assessment of both the devices and data management is illustrated. By explicitly considering different configurations, it will be possible to analyse the environmental impacts of the design decisions. Our research in progress targets a design approach to converge into an equilibrium between utility, performance, and minor environmental impact of smart systems.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it