MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148952798 · doi:10.1145/354876.354878

Configuring role-based access control to enforce mandatory and discretionary access control policies

2000· article· en· W2148952798 on OpenAlexafffund
Sylvia L. Osborn, Ravi Sandhu, Qamar Munawer

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Information and System Security · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAccess Control and Trust
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsRole-based access controlAccess controlDiscretionary access controlComputer scienceMandatory access controlComputer access controlControl (management)Physical accessComputer securityArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Access control models have traditionally included mandatory access control (or lattice-based access control) and discretionary access control. Subsequently, role-based access control has been introduced, along with claims that its mechanisms are general enough to simulate the traditional methods. In this paper we provide systematic constructions for various common forms of both of the traditional access control paradigms using the role-based access control (RBAC) models of Sandhu et al., commonly called RBAC96. We see that all of the features of the RBAC96 model are required, and that although for the manatory access control simulation, only one administrative role needs to be assumed, for the discretionary access control simulations, a complex set of administrative roles is required.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations574
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on Information and System SecuritySame topicAccess Control and TrustFrench-language works237,207