Proceedings of the 2007 Workshop on New Security Paradigms
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
NSPW is a unique workshop devoted to the examination of new paradigms in security and the critical study of existing paradigms. Each year since 1992, we examine proposals for new principles upon which information security can be rebuilt from the ground up. We conduct extensive, highly interactive discussions of these proposals, from which we hope both the audience and the authors emerge with a better understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of what has been discussed. It is both the focus on new paradigms and the nature of the interaction during the workshop that makes NSPW a very stimulating event. This year, we were fortunate to have a great program committee and outstanding submissions. In terms of geographical distribution, of the 24 members of the program committee, four were from Europe and the UK, four from Canada, and the rest from the USA. Each program committee member received 4-5 submissions. Each submission was reviewed under a double-bind system. The workshop received 27 submissions (four of which were from industry). Out of these, the program committee accepted 11. The breakdown of the submissions (and acceptances) by geographical region was as follows: 16 submissions had authors from North America (10 accepted), 9 from Europe and the UK (2 accepted), and 3 submissions had authors from other countries 3. Our program committee particularly looked for new paradigms, innovative approaches to older problems, early thinking on new topics, and controversial issues that might not make it into other conferences but deserved to have their try at shaking and breaking the mold. Following the review phase, the program committee held an extensive online discussion, which we believe improved the quality of the feedback to the authors and the program committee chairs. Participation in the workshop was limited to the authors of accepted papers, conference organizers, and a small number of other invitees. Each accepted paper was the focus of one hour of highly interactive discussion with frequent questions and brainstorming. Key points of the comments made during the discussions were scribed and handed to the authors at the end of each session. This feedback made it into the papers you will find in this volume: NSPW is one of the few venues that uses a post-workshop paper revision cycle to allow authors to refine their ideas (and the presentation of their ideas) based on the conversations and interactions at the workshop itself. We hope you will find the end result of this process informative, provocative, and inspiring.
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 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,004 |
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