A new security model for collaborative environments
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
Prevalent authentication and authorization models for distributed systems provide for the protection of computer systems and resources from unauthorized use. The rules and policies that drive the access decisions in such systems are typically configured up front and require trust establishment before the systems can be used. This approach does not work well for computer software that moderates human-to-human interaction. This work proposes a new model for trust establishment and management in computer systems supporting collaborative work. The model supports the dynamic addition of new users to a collaboration with very little initial trust placed into their identity and supports the incremental building of trust relationships through endorsements from established collaborators. It also recognizes the strength of a user’s authentication when making trust decisions. By mimicking the way humans build trust naturally the model can support a wide variety of usage scenarios. Its particular strength lies in the support for ad-hoc and dynamic collaborations and the ubiquitous access to a Computer Supported Collaboration Workspace (CSCW) system from locations with varying levels of trust and security. 1.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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