MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990798025 · doi:10.4018/jhisi.2006010102

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) Compliant Access Control Model for Web Services

2006· article· en· W1990798025 on OpenAlexaff
Vivying S. Y. Cheng, Patrick C. K. Hung

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Healthcare Information Systems and Informatics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAccess Control and Trust
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth Insurance Portability and Accountability ActProtected health informationInternet privacyBusinessInformation privacyHealth careComputer securityAccess controlPrivacy by DesignComputer scienceWorld Wide WebConfidentialityHealth policyHRHIS

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) is a set of rules to be followed by health plans, doctors, hospitals, and other healthcare providers in the U.S. HIPAA privacy rules create national standards to protect individuals’ health information. Recently, there have been increasing demands and discussions about Web services-based healthcare applications. It is, therefore, necessary for HIPAA privacy rules to be standardized in Web services. However, so far no comprehensive solutions to the various privacy issues have been defined in this area. This paper summarizes the HIPAA privacy rules and surveys the topic of protecting health data privacy under the HIPAA. We propose a vocabulary-based Web services privacy framework with Role-based Access Control (RBAC) with privacy extensions and argue the HIPAA compliance for such framework. For illustration, we present the first two HIPAA rules in the extended RBAC model and embed into the HIPAA-compliant technical architecture for implementation of Web services.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.332 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations37
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Healthcare Information Systems and InformaticsSame topicAccess Control and TrustFrench-language works237,207