AI-enabled IoT Applications: Towards a Transparent Governance Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Internet of Things (IoT) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems have become prevalent across various industries, steering to diverse and far-reaching outcomes, and their convergence has garnered significant attention in the tech world. Studies and reviews are instrumental in supplying industries with the nuanced understanding of the multifaceted developments of this joint domain. This paper undertakes a critical examination of existing perspectives and governance policies, adopting a contextual approach, and addressing not only the potential but also the limitations of these governance policies. In the complex landscape of AI-infused IoT systems, transparency and interpretability are pivotal qualities for informed decision-making and effective governance. In AI governance, transparency allows for scrutiny and accountability, while interpretability facilitates trust and confidence in AI-driven decisions. Therefore, we also evaluate and advocate for the use of two very popular eXplainable AI (XAI) techniques-SHAP and LIME-in explaining the predictive results of AI models. Subsequently, this paper underscores the imperative of not only maximizing the advantages and services derived from the incorporation of IoT and AI but also diligently minimizing possible risks and challenges.
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 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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".