MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1519046301

Proceedings of the 1st ACM workshop on Workshop on AISec

2008· article· en· W1519046301 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dirk Balfanz, Jessica Staddon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAccess Control and Trust
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceReputationInformation assuranceLibrary scienceVariety (cybernetics)PleasureInformation securityComputer securityPolitical scienceArtificial intelligencePsychologyLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is our great pleasure to welcome you to the 1st ACM Workshop on AISec -- AISec '08. The mission of this new workshop is to stimulate increased collaboration between the Security and AI communities. It is our strong belief that such collaboration is the best route towards fully realizing the security and privacy benefits of today's ubiquitous information. The call for papers attracted 20 submissions from Asia, Canada, Europe and the United States. The program committee accepted 7 research papers and 2 position papers covering a variety of topics, including usable access control and authentication, malware and network attack defense and reputation systems. In addition, the program includes two exciting invited talks. The first is by Dr. Chris Clifton of Purdue University; a prominent leader in both the privacy and data mining communities. The second is by Dr. Carl Landwehr, IARPA and University of Maryland. Dr. Landwehr is very well-known for his information assurance research and currently is the Program leader for the National Intelligence Community Information Assurance Research at IARPA, a program with many challenging problems intersecting both Security and AI. We give our heartfelt thanks to the program committee and external reviewers. It is quite challenging crafting a program for a cross-disciplinary conference. The program committee made significant strides in defining this largely new field of research and in soliciting relevant and novel research contributions, and all the reviewers worked very hard to give useful and insightful feedback to the authors.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.670
Threshold uncertainty score0.460

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAccess Control and TrustFrench-language works237,207