MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102964147 · doi:10.1109/cec.2003.1299602

Increasing the accuracy of a spam-detecting artificial immune system

2003· article· en· W2102964147 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
TopicSpam and Phishing Detection
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSpambotArtificial immune systemSpammingForum spamComputer securityArtificial intelligenceMachine learningData miningWorld Wide WebThe Internet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spam, the electronic equivalent of junk mail, affects over 600 million users worldwide. Even as anti-spam solutions change to limit the amount of spam sent to users, the senders adapt to make sure their messages are seen. This paper looks at application of the artificial immune system model to protect email users effectively from spam. In particular, it tests the spam immune system against the publicly available spam assassin corpus of spam and non-spam, and extends the original system by looking at several methods of classifying email messages with the detectors produced by the immune system. The resulting system classifies the messages with similar accuracy to other spam filters, but uses fewer detectors to do so, making it an attractive solution for circumstances where processing time is at a premium.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.733
Threshold uncertainty score0.202

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Quick stats

Citations45
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpam and Phishing DetectionFrench-language works237,207