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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".