MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154228377 · doi:10.1109/mobiquitous.2005.8

A SIP-based architecture model for contextual coalition access control for ubiquitous computing

2005· article· en· W2154228377 on OpenAlexaff
Ramiro Liscano, K. Wang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAccess Control and Trust
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccess controlDelegationComputer scienceRole-based access controlSession (web analytics)Computer securityArchitectureSession Initiation ProtocolComputer networkControl (management)Distributed computingWorld Wide WebServer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A significant deterrent to the ability to connect in a spontaneous manner in cross-enterprise collaborative applications is the difficulty in users from different domains being able to access resources or services located and owned by other entities. Coalition access control encompasses control mechanisms dealing with access between users of two or more different security domains. In this paper we present an approach to add contextual information to the distributed role based access control (dRBAC) model to support spontaneous coalition. The dRBAC model is a relatively new approach for coalition access control based on a delegation model but has been targeted towards pre-arranged delegations among distributed enterprises. A delegation architecture is presented that leverages SIP communication sessions to discover delegation security managers that can automatically exchange roles and delegations based on location and communication session contexts.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.319 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations7
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAccess Control and TrustFrench-language works237,207