A Usability Study of an Access Control System for Group Blogs
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Blogs are a medium to express thoughts, feelings, and opinions. Once published, blog articles potentially become persistent and can be read by non-intended audiences, causing hurt feelings and other troubles. In part these problems are due to the lack of access control in blogs. We propose an access control framework for group blogs. Compared to the typical access control in blogging tools, our system differs in a few aspects. First, the system enables bloggers to grant different access privileges to different audiences over a single blog article. That is, it associates access privileges to people rather than to artifacts (e.g., articles, blogs). Second, the system allows a blogger to create a collaborative space with other bloggers, for example by allowing others to edit his or her articles. Third, the management of access control is integrated with the process of writing and editing blog articles, facilitating the main workflow of the user. We conducted a usability study to evaluate our system and get constructive feedback from users. In this article, we present the proposed access control system, the results of the study, and analysis of the results.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it