Proceedings of the 2009 workshop on New security paradigms workshop
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Since 1992, the New Security Paradigms Workshop (NSPW) has published innovative, diverse, and sometimes controversial work that challenges current paradigms in computer security. This year's papers continue this tradition, with work that touches on many of the major challenges facing computer security today. We had papers on usable authentication, malware detection, filesystem access control, and secure routing. We had papers that challenged the foundations of security practice by questioning how we analyze and evaluate security problems. We even had a paper that argued that users were potentially right to ignore standard security advice. Again this year we had a strong group of submissions from which to build our program. We received 36 submissions; almost three-quarters of these came from academia, with the rest coming from industry (10). We accepted 12 submissions: 11 papers and one panel. The breakdown of the submissions (and acceptances) by geographical region was as follows: 17 submissions had authors from North America (6 accepted), 16 from Europe and the UK (5 accepted), and 3 submissions had authors from other countries (one accepted). To choose our program, first the 13 program committee members reviewed roughly eight submissions each. Once reviews were uploaded to the excellent yet free review system, EasyChair, we had a vigorous online discussion for two weeks. This discussion led to a consensus opinion on almost all of the papers, resulting in the selected papers you see here. As has been a tradition with NSPW from the beginning, all of the papers were discussed extensively at the workshop with all attendees participating. Following upon its success last year, we also divided into small groups to give the authors feedback before they presented their work in front of the entire workshop. In addition, to help improve the quality of the proceedings and provide ongoing support to authors throughout the revision process, all accepted papers were shepherded both before and after the workshop. As should be clear, NSPW thus required a significantly larger time and energy commitment from program committee members, authors, and participants than is the norm for security venues. We believe their effort was worthwhile; after reading this proceedings, we hope you will agree.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle