MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996010464 · doi:10.1002/spe.440

Taming access control security: extending capabilities using the views relationship

2002· article· en· W1996010464 on OpenAlex
Marcus E. Markiewicz, Carlos Lucena, Donald Cowan

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueSoftware Practice and Experience · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSecurity and Verification in Computing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersPontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de JaneiroUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsAbstractionComputer scienceAccess controlObject (grammar)Domain (mathematical analysis)Computer security modelControl (management)Role-based access controlSecurity policyOrder (exchange)Computer securityInterface (matter)Distributed computingOperating systemArtificial intelligenceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The ‘views’ relationship indicates how an object‐oriented design can be clearly separated into objects and their corresponding interface. This paper uses the concept of ‘views’ in order to achieve full separation between the application and the security policy in the design and implementation. The result is achieved by providing a model for capabilities using ‘views’ that is richer than the traditional capability model. In addition, a distributed access control model is shown to be effective through the use of Secure Object Communication Channels (SOCCs) to allow for secure connections at the abstract object level. This security is applicable in the e‐commerce application domain, bringing security directly to the application abstraction level. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.853
Threshold uncertainty score0.940

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.249 · 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