MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005035449 · doi:10.3166/isi.19.6.89-115

KAPUER : un assistant à l’écriture de politiques d’autorisation pour la protection de la vie privée

2014· article· fr· W2005035449 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Arnaud Oglaza, Romain Laborde, P. Aguilar Zárate

Bibliographic record

VenueIngénierie des systèmes d information · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesXACMLPolitical scienceArtComputer scienceAuthorizationComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nous utilisons de plus en plus d’équipements informatique connectés à Internet. Nos téléphones, nos tablettes, et maintenant les équipements de notre quotidien peuvent désormais partager des informations pour faciliter notre vie. Partager ces données peut porter préjudice à notre vie privée et il est nécessaire de les contrôler. Cependant, cette tâche est complexe surtout pour des utilisateurs novices. Pour les y aider, nous présentons un système d’aide à la décision appelé KAPUER dont l’objectif est d’apprendre les préférences en termes de protection de la vie privée et de proposer des règles adaptées pour le contrôle de l’accès aux données. Ce système est intégré dans l’architecture de gestion d’autorisation XACML et trois algorithmes d’apprentissages sont évalués.
\n
\nWe are using more and more devices connected to the Internet. Our smartphones, tablets and now everyday items can share data to make our life easier. Sharing data may harm our privacy and there is a need to control them. However, this task is complex especially for non technical users. To facilitate this task, we present a decision support system, named KAPUER, that proposes high level authorization policies by learning users’ privacy preferences. KAPUER has been integrated into XACML and three learning algorithms have been evaluated.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.737
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.006
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.255 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIngénierie des systèmes d informationSame topicPrivacy, Security, and Data ProtectionFrench-language works237,207