MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036733778 · doi:10.1145/2752952.2752965

SecLoc

2015· article· en· W2036733778 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jingwei Li, Anna Squicciarini, Dan Lin, Shuang Liang, Chunfu Jia

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCryptography and Data Security
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCloud computingComputer scienceComputer securityCloud storageFlexibility (engineering)ScalabilityCloud computing securityOverhead (engineering)Reliability (semiconductor)Information privacySecurity analysisAccess controlData securityData Protection Act 1998Data integrityComputer data storageDatabaseEncryption

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cloud computing offers a wide array of storage services. While enjoying the benefits of flexibility, scalability and reliability brought by the cloud storage, cloud users also face the risk of losing control of their own data, in partly because they do not know where their data is actually stored. This raises a number of security and privacy concerns regarding one's sensitive data such as health records. For example, according to Canadian laws, data related to personal identifiable information must be stored within Canada. Nevertheless, in contrast to the urgent demands, privacy requirements regarding to cloud storage locations have not been well investigated in the current cloud computing market, fostering security and privacy concerns among potential adopters. Aiming at addressing this emerging critical issue, we propose a novel secure location-sensitive storage framework, called SecLoc, which offers protection for cloud users' data following the storage location restrictions, with minimum management overhead to existing cloud storage services. We conduct security analysis, complexity analysis and experimental evaluation on the proposed SecLoc system. Our results demonstrate both effectiveness and efficiency of our mechanism.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.805
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.206 · 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.

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

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCryptography and Data SecurityFrench-language works237,207