MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112894193 · doi:10.1109/ithet.2006.339796

An Access Control Scheme for Web-Based E-Learning Systems

2006· article· en· W2112894193 on OpenAlexaff
Harris Wang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAccess Control and Trust
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceScheme (mathematics)World Wide WebWeb serviceWeb standardsControl (management)Web modelingWeb developmentAccess controlMultimediaArtificial intelligenceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years information technology and the World Wide Web in particular have changed profoundly the way we teach and learn, and this revolution will continue in the coming years with more and more universities, colleges and even elementary schools incorporating Web-based e-learning systems of some kinds into their education business. Different from other Web-based systems, a fully integrated e-learning system should provide different groups of users such as program directors, course authors, editors, course coordinators, instructors, tutors, students and administrators with access to different web documents and Web services, although they do share some of the documents and services. Therefore, the access control of such Web-based e-learning systems has become an issue for both researchers and practitioners in e-learning. In this paper, we present a role-based access control scheme that has been successfully used in the development EduPalace, an integrated Web- based system for e- learning and e-education. We will begin with an introduction to EduPalace to see what access control we need in such an integrated e-learning system, and then to present the access control scheme in detail. In conclusion, we will discuss some of the advantages of this scheme as well as how this scheme may be used in developing other Web-based systems such as those for e-business and e-service.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.713
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.331
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAccess Control and TrustFrench-language works237,207