MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033566717 · doi:10.1109/nomsw.2010.5486583

Introduction to MAGNATE: Gathering and analysis of trust evidence

2010· article· en· W2033566717 on OpenAlexaff
Chern Har Yew, Hanan Lutfiyya

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAccess Control and Trust
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSet (abstract data type)Computer scienceWork (physics)Middleware (distributed applications)Data scienceInternet privacyComputer securityDatabaseEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trust is often calculated based on evidence which may come from a set of diverse sources. Challenges in trust calculation include the lack of a standard way to access evidence sources, lack of a standard for presenting evidence, unreliable evidence sources and differences of opinion on how evidence should be interpreted. This work shows that there are aspects of trust calculation that can be abstracted into a middleware. Doing so makes it easier for developers to develop applications that take trust into account when making decisions.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.128
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.140

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.128
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0130.010
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.008

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAccess Control and TrustFrench-language works237,207