MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1525738306 · doi:10.1109/mcc.2015.84

Balancing Privacy with Legitimate Surveillance and Lawful Data Access

2015· article· en· W1525738306 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kim‐Kwang Raymond Choo, Rick Sarre

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Cloud Computing · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital and Cyber Forensics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWaseda UniversityHubei University of TechnologyUniversity of South AustraliaHubei UniversityAalto-YliopistoUniversity of CanberraSt. Francis Xavier UniversityDeakin UniversityLahore University of Management Sciences
KeywordsCloud computingContext (archaeology)Computer securityCybercrimeInternet privacyInformation privacyEmerging technologiesComputer scienceBig dataBusinessLawPolitical scienceThe InternetWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The modern business world has overseen a massive expansion in global technological capacity. This expansion has allowed us to take great strides in electronic commerce and international communication. There are downsides, however. The new technologies have opened up a vast array of avenues for criminal activity. The new technologies also carry with them intrusive capabilities, and these, too, will require policies and laws that hold accountable those who abuse them. Legislators and policymakers the world over must remain abreast of current developments, being constantly mindful of the difficulties that will challenge any society that keenly embraces new technological capacity without putting in place appropriate regulatory mechanisms and legal regimes. The following overview reviews these themes in the context of cloud technology.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.070
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.127

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.070
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.031
Scholarly communication0.0210.032
Open science0.0040.014
Research integrity0.0120.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Cloud ComputingSame topicDigital and Cyber ForensicsFrench-language works237,207