MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387734759 · doi:10.1111/exsy.13467

Machine learning and internet of things applications in enterprise architectures: Solutions, challenges, and open issues

2023· article· en· W4387734759 on OpenAlexaff
Zubaida Rehman, Noshina Tariq, Syed Atif Moqurrab, Joon Yoo, Gautam Srivastava

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Systems · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsBrandon University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceInternet of ThingsCloud computingAutomationLeverage (statistics)Context (archaeology)Data scienceComputer securityArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary The rapid growth of the Internet of Things (IoT) has led to its widespread adoption in various industries, enabling enhanced productivity and efficient services. Integrating IoT systems with existing enterprise application systems has become common practice. However, this integration necessitates reevaluating and reworking current Enterprise Architecture (EA) models and Expert Systems (ES) to accommodate IoT and cloud technologies. Enterprises must adopt a multifaceted view and automate various aspects, including operations, data management, and technology infrastructure. Machine Learning (ML) is a powerful IoT and smart automation tool within EA. Despite its potential, a need for dedicated work focuses on ML applications for IoT services and systems. With IoT being a significant field, analyzing IoT‐generated data and IoT‐based networks is crucial. Many studies have explored how ML can solve specific IoT‐related challenges. These mutually reinforcing technologies allow IoT applications to leverage sensor data for ML model improvement, leading to enhanced IoT operations and practices. Furthermore, ML techniques empower IoT systems with knowledge and enable suspicious activity detection in smart systems and objects. This survey paper conducts a comprehensive study on the role of ML in IoT applications, particularly in the domains of automation and security. It provides an in‐depth analysis of the state‐of‐the‐art ML approaches within the context of IoT, highlighting their contributions, challenges, and potential applications.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.009
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations49
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert SystemsSame topicIoT and Edge/Fog ComputingFrench-language works237,207