MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035452705 · doi:10.1142/s012962641000020x

A QUANTUM CRYPTOGRAPHIC SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM OF ACCESS CONTROL IN A HIERARCHY

2010· article· en· W2035452705 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

VenueParallel Processing Letters · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHierarchyComputer scienceAccess controlCryptographyCollusionScheme (mathematics)Theoretical computer scienceComputer securityIdentity (music)Computer access controlKey (lock)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Access control in a hierarchy refers to a selective access to a database. A large number of users work with the same database. These users are organized in a hierarchical structure and therefore have different access rights to the data. This paper offers a solution to the problem of access control in a hierarchy based on quantum cryptography. Each user has two keys: a classical key and a quantum key. Our scheme offers several security advantages over the classical schemes to date. It protects users from identity theft and prevents collusion attacks. Most importantly though, our scheme adapts to dynamic changes of the user hierarchy: users may join, leave, or change position in the hierarchy, without affecting the rest of the user structure.

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)0.000
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 score0.739
Threshold uncertainty score0.497

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.238 · 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