MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100065082 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2007.202

Secure and Observable Auditing of Electronic Voting Systems using Stock Indices

2007· article· en· W2100065082 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInternet Traffic Analysis and Secure E-voting
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectronic votingBallotVerifiable secret sharingAuditVotingComputer securityComputer scienceSecret ballotCryptographyAccountingSpoilt voteStock (firearms)Cardinal voting systemsAudit trailInternet privacyBusinessPolitical scienceLawGroup voting ticketEngineeringPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, there has been a tremendous increase in the interest and discussion around the use of electronic voting in our society. Verifiable electronic voting systems rely on the ability to conduct random ballot audits to establish election integrity. However in order for the election results to be legitimate, not only must these audits be conducted in an unbiased manner, but the participants in the election (candidates and voters alike) need to be reasonably convinced thereof. In this paper we propose a procedure for fairly and transparently selecting ballots during an election audit using stock indices.

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.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.482

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.231 · 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