MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063851541 · doi:10.1109/cw.2014.47

Mining Social Behavioral Biometrics in Twitter

2014· article· en· W2063851541 on OpenAlexafffund
Madeena Sultana, Padma Polash Paul, Marina L. Gavrilova

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicUser Authentication and Security Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiometricsComputer scienceAuthentication (law)Identification (biology)Behavioral patternWorld Wide WebInternet privacySocial communicationData scienceHuman–computer interactionComputer securityPsychologyCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Online Social Networking Sites (SNSs) are considered as one of the well-established mediums of mass communication in today's world. Similar to physical world humans tend to have unique pattern of social communication in virtual world. However, analysis of such web based communication patterns is rarely seen for person identification. Most of the existing biometric recognition systems use either individual physiological or behavioural traits. A framework for the analysis of the web-based social interaction data as biometric features is largely unexplored until now. In this paper, a framework to accumulate and analyze social communication based data from online SNSs is presented. Analysis of such features explores personal characteristics, knowledge, and communication patterns that can successfully be utilized as Social Behavioral Biometric features. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed social behavioral biometric features are significantly useful for person authentication.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations13
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUser Authentication and Security SystemsFrench-language works237,207