MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127626771 · doi:10.1109/wcmeb.2007.34

Addressing Privacy in a Federated Identity Management Network for EHealth

2007· article· en· W2127626771 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdentity managementeHealthInternet privacyComputer securityInformation privacyAllianceService providerComputer scienceIdentity (music)Service (business)Access controlHealth careBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

E-health networks can provide integrated services to patients and health care workers that are more broadly accessible by leveraging Internet technology and electronic health records. However, issues of security and privacy must be addressed. In particular, compliance with relevant privacy legislation must be established. Federated identity management can enable users and service providers to securely and systematically manage identities and user profiles in a single sign on framework that controls access to personal information. In this paper, we use a simple ePrescription scenario to analyze the business and technical issues that need to be addressed in a Liberty Alliance federated identity management framework. We look at the potential impact of privacy compliance on three existing components of the framework (Discovery Service, Identity Mapping Service, Interaction Service) as well as a fourth component (Audit Service) that has been proposed to address potential privacy breeches in Liberty Alliance.

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.

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)0.003
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 score0.832
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPrivacy, Security, and Data ProtectionFrench-language works237,207