MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112170070 · doi:10.1145/1162678.1162686

SC2D

2006· article· en· W2112170070 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey C. Mogul, Martin Arlitt

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Security and Intrusion Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTRACE (psycholinguistics)AbstractionDilemmaRaw dataComputer securityCode (set theory)Information privacyData scienceSoftware engineeringProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Progress in networking research depends crucially on applying novel analysis tools to real-world traces of network activity. This often conflicts with privacy and security requirements; many raw network traces include information that should never be revealed to others.The traditional resolution of this dilemma uses trace anonymization to remove secret information from traces, theoretically leaving enough information for research purposes while protecting privacy and security. However, trace anonymization can have both technical and non-technical drawbacks.We propose an alternative to trace-to-trace transformation that operates at a different level of abstraction. Since the ultimate goal is to transform raw traces into research results, we say: cut out the middle step. We propose a model for shipping flexible analysis code to the data, rather than vice versa. Our model aims to support independent, expert, prior review of analysis code. We propose a system design using layered abstraction to provide both ease of use, and ease of verification of privacy and security properties. The system would provide pre-approved modules for common analysis functions. We hope our approach could significantly increase the willingness of trace owners to share their data with researchers. We have loosely prototyped this approach in previously published research.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score0.263

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.189 · 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
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

Citations25
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNetwork Security and Intrusion DetectionFrench-language works237,207