MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004941559 · doi:10.1145/2046556.2046565

SPEcTRe

2011· article· en· W2004941559 on OpenAlexaff
Jeremy Day, Yizhou Huang, Edward Knapp, Ian Goldberg

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCryptography and Data Security
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTollComputer scienceComputer securityScheme (mathematics)Law enforcementElectronic toll collectionEnforcementAgency (philosophy)SuiteInternet privacyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traditional stop-and-pay toll booths inconvenience drivers and are infeasible for complicated urban areas. As a way to minimize traffic congestion and avoid the inconveniences caused by toll booths, electronic tolling has been suggested. For example, as drivers pass certain locations, a picture of their licence plate may be taken and a bill sent to their home. However, this simplistic method allows the administrator of the system to build a dossier on drivers. While this may be an attractive feature for law enforcement, a society may not wish to trust the tolling agency with such detailed information. We present SPEcTRe, a suite of protocols to maintain driver privacy while ensuring that tolls are accurately collected. Existing protocols for privacy-preserving electronic toll pricing suffer from computational challenges and require an undesirable amount of location data to be collected. We present two schemes: the spot-record scheme, which requires the same amount of location data exposure as prior privacy-preserving schemes, but runs much faster, and the no-record scheme, which collects no location information from honest users and is still able to run efficiently.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.283
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2830.184

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.163 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations18
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCryptography and Data SecurityFrench-language works237,207