MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1586718624

Role-Based Access Control Requirements Model with Purpose Extension.

2007· article· en· W1586718624 on OpenAlexaff
Faranak Farzad, Eric Yu, Patrick C. K. Hung

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAccess Control and Trust
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRole-based access controlAccess controlComputer scienceSeparation of dutiesHierarchyComputer securityContext (archaeology)Domain (mathematical analysis)Asset (computer security)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) is increasingly used for ensuring security and privacy in complex organizations such as healthcare institutions. In RBAC, access permissions are granted to an individual based on her defined roles. Much work has been done on the specification of RBAC models for enforcing access control; however, in order to arrive at appropriate choices of access control for particular roles and individuals in an organization, we need models at the requirements level to support elicitation and analysis. Crook et al. [3] have provided a requirements level model for RBAC, defining access to an information asset based on role, responsibility, operation, and context. We extend the Crook model to include a purpose hierarchy in order to meet the needs of privacy requirements. Access to health records is used as the example domain. 1.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.306 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations7
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAccess Control and TrustFrench-language works237,207