MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386501376 · doi:10.1145/3594556.3594611

Digital Twins and Blockchain for IoT Management

2023· preprint· en· W4386501376 on OpenAlexaff
Mayra Samaniego, Ralph Deters

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlockchain Technology Applications and Security
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer securityBlockchainData accessCloud computingAccess controlAccess managementTransparency (behavior)Smart contractPersonalizationData securityInternet privacyWorld Wide WebComputer networkDatabaseEncryption

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Security and privacy are primary concerns in IoT management. Security breaches in IoT resources, such as smart sensors, can leak sensitive data and compromise the privacy of individuals. Effective IoT management requires a comprehensive approach to prioritize access security and data privacy protection. Digital twins create virtual representations of IoT resources. Blockchain adds decentralization, transparency, and reliability to IoT systems. This research integrates digital twins and blockchain to manage access to IoT data streaming. Digital twins are used to encapsulate data access and view configurations. Access is enabled on digital twins, not on IoT resources directly. Trust structures programmed as smart contracts are the ones that manage access to digital twins. Consequently, IoT resources are not exposed to third parties, and access security breaches can be prevented. Blockchain has been used to validate digital twins and store their configuration. The research presented in this paper enables multitenant access and customization of data streaming views and abstracts the complexity of data access management. This approach provides access and configuration security and data privacy protection.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.497
Threshold uncertainty score0.691

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 science0.0010.004
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 head0.259
Teacher spread0.236 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBlockchain Technology Applications and SecurityFrench-language works237,207