MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1558825671

Criteria for Evaluating Authentication Systems.

2009· article· en· W1558825671 on OpenAlex
Steven C. Way, Yufei Yuan

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

VenueJournal of the Association for Information Systems · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicUser Authentication and Security Systems
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAuthentication (law)Computer securityContext (archaeology)Multi-factor authenticationComputer scienceComponent (thermodynamics)Identity (music)Identity theftInformation securityChip Authentication ProgramGeneric Bootstrapping ArchitectureInternet privacyBusinessAuthentication protocol
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

User authentication is an important component of information security. It is critical in addressing many concerns that consumers and business have over the risk of identity theft. However, there is no systematic method to measure how good an authentication mechanism is in a given business context. This paper outlines nine criteria businesses can use to assess authentication systems. With these criteria, businesses are better equipped to select authentication systems that meet the needs of both their organization and their customers, and provide better protection against identity theft and other computer crimes.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.291 · 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