MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129533806 · doi:10.1002/cpe.3167

Fine‐grained filtering to provide access control for data providing services within collaborative environments

2013· article· en· W2129533806 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kevin P. Brown, M A Hayes, David S. Allison, Miriam A. M. Capretz, Margaret Sazio, Rupinder Mann

Bibliographic record

VenueConcurrency and Computation Practice and Experience · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAccess Control and Trust
Canadian institutionsLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceOntologyAccess controlMarkup languageWorld Wide WebData accessService (business)Domain (mathematical analysis)DatabaseXMLComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary A data providing service (DPS) in service‐oriented architecture is tasked only with the retrieval of data that are annotated over a domain ontology. One particular motivating application of DPSs is their use within collaborative environments. An important characteristic for the enterprises of such a collaborative environment is the ability to employ data sharing with one another. A major concern in this situation is the protection of each enterprise's privacy while still permitting data sharing. One potential solution is to provide filtered data through access control. This work describes how to implement access control through fine‐grained filtering of DPS response messages; it is accomplished using a filtering ontology and relations between the domain ontology of DPS and the proposed filtering ontology. Therefore, enterprises can write enterprise‐specific access control policies referencing a common filtering ontology defined within a collaborative environment, enabling access control‐based data sharing within the environment. This work additionally illustrates the implementation of our general solution to data providing web services, interpreted by an eXtensible Access Control Markup Language‐based access control framework. The implementation is further evaluated in a case study of real world data, provided by a health research institute in London, Canada. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.097

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.009
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConcurrency and Computation Practice and ExperienceSame topicAccess Control and TrustFrench-language works237,207