MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1530426809

Best Practices for Applying Sonification to Support Teaching and Learning of Network Intrusion Detection

2010· article· en· W1530426809 on OpenAlex
Miguel Á. García-Ruiz, Miguel Vargas Martín, Bill Kapralos, Jay Shiro Tashiro, Ricardo Acosta-Díaz

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBluetooth and Wireless Communication Technologies
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSonificationUsabilityComputer scienceTask (project management)IntrusionIntrusion detection systemSet (abstract data type)Human–computer interactionMachine learningArtificial intelligenceMultimediaEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Network Intrusion Detection System (NIDS) supports the network administrator's decision on what to do regarding a network attack. Teaching and training on the use of NIDSs and network intrusion detection in general is not a trivial task for a number of reasons, including the vast amount of visual-based data output by a typical NIDS and network log that students must analyze. To overcome this, sonification (the use of sound parameters to convey meaningful information) can be useful to augment the visual data and therefore support the teaching of NIDSs and network status. However, little is known on how to effectively incorporate sonification in educational and training settings. Based on our previous sonification research that includes usability tests on NIDS sonification, this paper presents a preliminary set of best practices on applying sonification to support teaching of network intrusion detection in the conventional classroom.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.647
Threshold uncertainty score0.530

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.268 · 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