Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30884833›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2019

Data Trustworthiness Evaluation in Mobile Crowdsensing Systems with Users' Trust Dispositions' Consideration.

Eva Zupančič, Borut Žalik

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Eva ZupančičFaculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Maribor, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia. eva.zupancic@um.si.ORCID 0000-0002-0913-4959
Borut ŽalikFaculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Maribor, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia. borut.zalik@um.si.

Funding

Javna Agencija za Raziskovalno Dejavnost RS P2-0041 and J2-8176
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mobile crowdsensing is a powerful paradigm that exploits the advanced sensing capabilities and ubiquity of smartphones in order to collect and analyze data on a scale that is impossible with fixed sensor networks. Mobile crowdsensing systems incorporate people and rely on their participation and willingness to contribute up-to-date and accurate information, meaning that such systems are prone to malicious and erroneous data. Therefore, trust and reputation are key factors that need to be addressed in order to ensure sustainability of mobile crowdsensing systems. The objective of this work is to define the conceptual trust framework that considers human involvement in mobile crowdsensing systems and takes into account that users contribute their opinions and other subjective data besides the raw sensing data generated by their smart devices. We propose a novel method to evaluate the trustworthiness of data contributed by users that also considers the subjectivity in the contributed data. The method is based on a comparison of users' trust attitudes and applies nonparametric statistic methods. We have evaluated the performance of our method with extensive simulations and compared it to the method proposed by Huang that adopts Gompertz function for rating the contributions. The simulation results showed that our method outperforms Huang's method by 28.6% on average and the method without data trustworthiness calculation by 33.6% on average in different simulation settings.

Indexed as

data trustworthinesshuman involvementmobile crowdsensingopinionsopportunistic sensingparticipatory sensingreputation systemssubjectivitytrust attitudetrust framework

Identifiers

PMID30884833
PMCPMC6471370

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.