MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1896093329 · doi:10.1109/mwc.2015.7224734

Security and privacy for mobile healthcare networks: from a quality of protection perspective

2015· article· en· W1896093329 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.

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

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Wireless Communications · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer securityInternet privacyInformation privacyPerspective (graphical)Wearable computerFlourishingPrivacy by DesignWearable technologyInformation security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the flourishing of multi-functional wearable devices and the widespread use of smartphones, MHN becomes a promising paradigm of ubiquitous healthcare to continuously monitor our health conditions, remotely diagnose phenomena, and share health information in real time. However, MHNs raise critical security and privacy issues, since highly sensitive health information is collected, and users have diverse security and privacy requirements about such information. In this article, we investigate security and privacy protection in MHNs from the perspective of QoP, which offers users adjustable security protections at fine-grained levels. Specifically, we first introduce the architecture of MHN, and point out the security and privacy challenges from the perspective of QoP. We then present some countermeasures for security and privacy protection in MHNs, including privacy- preserving health data aggregation, secure health data processing, and misbehavior detection. Finally, we discuss some open problems and pose future research directions in MHNs.

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)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesOpen science
Consensus categoriesOpen science
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 score0.682
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0150.021
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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.240 · 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