MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1531584233

Digital forensics on a shoestring: a case study from the University of Victoria

2015· article· en· W1531584233 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital and Cyber Forensics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDigital forensicsArtComputer graphics (images)Computer scienceComputer security
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While much has been written on the increasing importance of digital forensics in archival workflows, most of the literature focuses on theoretical issues or establishing best practices in the abstract. Where case studies exist, most have been written from the perspective of larger organizations with well-resourced digital forensics facilities. However organizations of any size are increasingly likely to receive donations of born-digital material on outdated media, and a need exists for more modest solutions to the problem of acquiring and preserving their contents. This case study outlines the development of a small-scale digital forensics program at the University of Victoria using inexpensive components and open source software, funded by a $2000 research grant from the Canadian Association of Research Libraries (CARL).

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.212
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0040.002
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 head0.244
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.220 · 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