MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073023830 · doi:10.1145/952532.952599

A protection scheme for collaborative environments

2003· article· en· W2073023830 on OpenAlexaff
Issa Traoré, Suraiya Khan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSecurity and Verification in Computing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScalabilityComputer scienceUsabilityAccess controlScheme (mathematics)Computer securityCollaborative softwareComputer security modelDistributed computingComputer networkWorld Wide WebDatabaseHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In collaborative working environments where multiple users use and/or provide multiple services, a more flexible security model is needed. Security must be enforced in such environments without affecting usability, scalability, and performance. In this paper, we propose a flexible protection scheme based on the lattice security model that combines information flow and access control mechanisms in order to address privacy and integrity requirements in scalable collaborative environments.

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)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.016
Open science0.0030.010
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.259
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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations7
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSecurity and Verification in ComputingFrench-language works237,207