MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W203117388

Research on Description Logic Based Conflict Detection Methods for RB-RBAC Model

2006· article· en· W203117388 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueActive Media Technology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAccess Control and Trust
Canadian institutionsCAE (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRole-based access controlComputer scienceAuthorizationConflict resolutionAccess controlRule of inferenceResolution (logic)Logic modelComputer securityConflict managementConflict analysisTheoretical computer scienceDistributed computingProgramming language
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The RB-RBAC family introduces negative authorization, represented by negative roles, which may bring conflict, and conflict detection and resolution become an import work in RB-RBAC policy management. We proposed a formalization of RB-RBAC model by description logic and developed conflict detection methods based on description logic reasoning service. Conflicts can be detected when all authorization rules have been defined, and a revised detection method is also given to improve the system efficiency when dynamically adding new authorization rule to system. Conflicts among related rules and among unrelated rules can be distinguished by these methods. We also demonstrate a simple method to resolve conflict.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.908
Threshold uncertainty score0.531

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.207
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.280 · 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