MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111299523 · doi:10.1109/icip.2008.4712016

Coding and encryption of visual objects for privacy protected surveillance

2008· article· en· W2111299523 on OpenAlexaff
K. Heath Martin, Konstantinos N. Plataniotis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Steganography and Watermarking Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEncryptionComputer scienceMultiple encryption40-bit encryptionCoding (social sciences)Filesystem-level encryptionOn-the-fly encryptionProbabilistic encryptionComputer visionComputer securityArtificial intelligenceTheoretical computer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a scheme for secure coding of arbitrarily-shaped visual objects. Called SecST-SPIHT, it employs SPIHT based coding along with selective encryption for efficient, secure storage and transmission of visual object shape and texture. The selective encryption utilizes a novel bit classification scheme which ensures protection of the entire code by encrypting only a small number of bits (less than 5% for securing shape and texture, and less than 0.5% for just the texture). The encryption is performed in the compressed domain and does not affect the rate-distortion performance of the coder. A parameter allows control over the strength of the encryption versus required processing overhead. The scheme can be employed in a privacy protected surveillance system, whereby visual objects of human subjects are encrypted so that the content is only available to certain entities, such as persons of authority, possessing the correct decryption key.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.268
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Steganography and Watermarking TechniquesFrench-language works237,207