MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138625739 · doi:10.1109/dnsr.2004.1344731

Adaptive filtering of spam

2004· article· en· W2138625739 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
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpam and Phishing Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Moncton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceFilter (signal processing)Set (abstract data type)VocabularyProcess (computing)Artificial intelligenceLayer (electronics)Natural language processingSpeech recognitionProgramming languageComputer visionLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a new spam filter which acts as an additional layer in the spam filtering process. This filter is based on what we call a representative vocabulary. Spam e-mails are divided into categories in which each category is represented by a set of tokens which form a representative text (RT). Tokens are strings of characters (words, sentences, or sometimes meaningless strings of characters). This RT is used to compute a resemblance ratio with incoming e-mails. With this ratio, we decide whether the incoming e-mail is a spam. This filter was implemented and integrated to Spamihilator software. Some experimental and interesting results are presented.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations48
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpam and Phishing DetectionFrench-language works237,207