MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405519226 · doi:10.2478/cait-2024-0036

A Cost-Benefit Model for Feasible IoT Edge Resources Scalability to Improve Real-Time Processing Performance

2024· article· en· W4405519226 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

VenueCybernetics and Information Technologies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsSeneca Polytechnic
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceScalabilityEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionInternet of ThingsDistributed computingReal-time computingEmbedded systemArtificial intelligenceDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Edge computing systems have emerged to facilitate real-time processing for delay-sensitive tasks in Internet of Things (IoT) Systems. As the volume of generated data and the real-time tasks increase, more pressure on edge servers is created. This eventually reduces the ability of edge servers to meet the processing deadlines for such delay-sensitive tasks, degrading users’ satisfaction and revenues. At some point, scaling up the edge servers’ processing resources might be needed to maintain user satisfaction. However, enterprises need to know if the cost of that scalability will be feasible in generating the required return on the investment and reducing the forgone revenues. This paper introduces a cost-benefit model that values the cost of edge processing resources scalability and the benefit of maintaining user satisfaction. We simulated our cost-benefit model to show its ability to decide whether the scalability will be feasible using different scenarios.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.806

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 communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.231 · 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