MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Records in the Cloud: Authenticity and jurisdiction

2013· article· en· W1994685142 on OpenAlexaff
Luciana Duranti, Adam Jansen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDigital and Traditional Archives Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCloud computingJurisdictionComputer scienceComputer securityInternet privacyWorld Wide WebPolitical scienceLawOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A rapidly growing number of public and private organizations are turning to the use of Cloud Services in order to reduce the cost of creating, managing and storing records without fully understanding the risks being assumed to security, privacy, compliance and, perhaps most importantly, the accuracy, reliability and authenticity of those records. Added to those risks are the legal and liability issues that arise when the contracting party, service provider and data center where storage occurs all reside in separate jurisdictions. This paper presents the Records in the Cloud research project that seeks to address these hazards by developing methodologies and instruments to assess risk, create guidelines for contractual agreements with service providers, and draft model policies and legislation concerning jurisdiction.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.644
Threshold uncertainty score0.924

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDigital and Traditional Archives ManagementFrench-language works237,207