MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083644394 · doi:10.1109/ccgrid.2005.1558564

A secure trust and incentive management framework for public-resource based computing utilities

2005· article· en· W2083644394 on OpenAlexaff
Aritra Mitra, Ranganath Udupa, Muthucumaru Maheswaran

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPeer-to-Peer Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncentiveComputational trustComputer scienceTrust management (information system)Resource (disambiguation)Process (computing)Computer securityShared resourceAutonomyTrust anchorComputer networkMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trust and security are two major issues in large distributed systems that are highly inter-dependent such that it is hard to bootstrap one without the other. In distributed systems that are built using private resources, security is bootstrapped using off-line trust relationships. Mandating off-line trust relations, however, has the undesirable effect of limiting the membership of distributed systems. Therefore, public-resource based systems need online trust modeling. This paper presents a two-layered framework that considers trust, security and incentives in an integrated fashion. Our framework is characterized by (a) a community-based process that is essentially decentralized for evaluating and assigning trust for peers (b) policy autonomy in administering incentives and trust, and (c) lowers the join time trust requirements for peers. Results from early prototyping and simulations show the proposed framework can be implemented with acceptable overheads and is capable of evolving trust and applying it for resource management.

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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.681
Threshold uncertainty score0.707

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPeer-to-Peer Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207