MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136097620 · doi:10.1109/cbms.2008.14

Behavior-Based Access Control for Distributed Healthcare Environment

2008· article· en· W2136097620 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad H. Yarmand, Kamran Sartipi, Douglas G. Down

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAccess Control and Trust
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccess controlComputer scienceInteroperabilityWorkflowRole-based access controlComputer securityMandatory access controlComputer access controlDomain (mathematical analysis)Health carePrivilege (computing)World Wide WebDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Privacy and security are critical requirements for using patient profiles in distributed healthcare environments. The amalgamation of new information technology with traditional healthcare workflows for sharing patient profiles has made the entire system vulnerable to security and privacy breaches. In this paper we present a novel access control model based on a framework designed for data and service interoperability in the healthcare domain. The proposed model for customizable access control captures the dynamic behavior of the user and determines access rights accordingly. The model is generic and flexible in the sense that an access control engine dynamically receives security effective factors from the subject user, and identifies the privilege level in accessing clinical data using different specialized components within the engine. Standard data representation formats are used to make the model compatible with different healthcare environments. The access control engine uses a flow-based approach to follow the user's behavior. The proposed model is supported by a real world case study.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations16
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAccess Control and TrustFrench-language works237,207