Bibliographic record
Abstract
A business model describes certain operations of an enterprise, and an important aspect of business operations deals with the specification of access control policies, which are used to constrain the business operations by adding what should, could, or must be. We describe the use of patterns for presenting access control models and policies. Our goal is to specify access control policies such that they are based on access control models and have the capability of policy languages, thereby making the foundational blocks of these policies and operational models identical. Thus, the integration of these policies into operational models is straightforward. To show our approach, we use Role-based Access Control (RBAC), a well-known access control model, and also select a business process model whose foundational building blocks are Resources, Events, and Agents (REA). We make three main contributions: 1) the use of the same foundational building blocks and similar models to describe business processes and access control models, 2) access control policies that are based on an access control model, and 3) access control policies that are rule-based and akin to policy languages. As a result, such models are more understandable, and their future modifications are more straightforward.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".