Bibliographic record
Abstract
Radio frequency identification (RFID), a technology for automatic object identification, has wide applications in many areas including manufacturing, healthcare, and transportation. Yet, the uniquely identifiable objects pose a privacy threat to individuals carrying the objects. Most previous work on privacy-preserving RFID technology, such as EPC re-encryption and killing tags, focused on the threats caused by the physical RFID tags in the data collection phase, but these techniques cannot address the privacy threats in the data publishing phase, when a large volume of RFID data is released to a third party. In this paper, we study the privacy threats caused by publishing RFID data. Even if the explicit identifying information, such as name and social security number, has been removed from the published RFID data, an adversary may identify a target victim's record or infer her sensitive value by matching a priori known visited locations and timestamps. RFID data by default is high-dimensional, so applying traditional anonymity model to RFID data suffers from the curse of high dimensionality, and would result in poor data usefulness. We define a new privacy model, develop an anonymization algorithm to address the special challenges on RFID data, and evaluate its performance in terms of data quality and efficiency.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.166 | 0.329 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".