MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Designing a High-Security Voting System for Fraudulent Detection using Fog Computing Architecture

2025· article· W4416963416 on OpenAlexaff
Amber Hayat, Uppara Rajanikanth, Ahmed A. Elngar, Danish Shamshad, Ahmed Hammad

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicInternet Traffic Analysis and Secure E-voting
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCloud computingAdapter (computing)Fog computingArchitectureNode (physics)Voting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Billions of devices are connected over networks that are transferring huge amounts of data. Managing such huge data in the cloud has become cumbersome. Fog Node is a new technology that is deployed in a proximal network, which computes the data and identifies what data needs to be deployed into the cloud. In this paper, there is a secure voting system using Fog Computing. The proposed architecture is for the Fog node, which will communicate with end devices and cloud services. In this paper, cross-network support, free-form addressing devices, and IP addresses are also considered. Intelligent adapter modules and fog manager modules use specific interfaces to communicate with clouds.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.740
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.235 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInternet Traffic Analysis and Secure E-votingFrench-language works237,207