MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058864527 · doi:10.1109/trustcom.2011.85

Efficiently Achieving Full Three-Way Non-repudiation in Consumer-Level eCommerce and M-Commerce Transactions

2011· article· en· W2058864527 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen W. Neville, Michael Horie

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Authentication Protocols Security
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDatabase transactionNon-repudiationCredit cardBusinessComputer securityFinancial transactionFinancial institutionCommerceLiberian dollarLiabilityE-commerceComputer sciencePaymentFinanceWorld Wide WebDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

eCommerce has rapidly turned into a trillion dollar a year industry. Now an integral part of modern economies, it is continuing to expand, especially in the form of M- commerce. Numerous solutions have been proposed to secure consumer-level eCommerce and M-commerce transactions. The recent shift toward chip-and-PIN cards in some jurisdictions, and similar technologies that require pre-transaction customer authorization, has begun to shift the legal liability for security breaches from the financial institutions onto the customers themselves. Because it is relatively easy to acquire someone's PIN (e.g., through shoulder surfing, cameras placed in the environment, touch sensitive overlays, or compromised debit or credit card terminals), a core issue is that customers are given no formal means by which they can prove their involvement (or lack thereof) in a given transaction. To make matters worse, the supposition becomes that they were careless with their PIN and, hence, by the card holder agreement, hold financial responsibility for the transaction(s). This work addresses said problem by developing a secure and efficient (<; 5 second) consumer-level eCommerce/M-Commerce transaction protocol that supports non-repudiation for the customer, merchant, and financial institution. Hence, post-transaction, each participant holds sufficient information to prove what the others did (or did not) do. To our knowledge this is the first transaction protocol to support such full 3-way non-repudiation.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.010
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.218 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Authentication Protocols SecurityFrench-language works237,207