MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155826795 · doi:10.1109/tkde.2010.205

Static and Dynamic Delegation in the Role Graph Model

2010· article· en· W2155826795 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAccess Control and Trust
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaShandong University
KeywordsDelegationComputer scienceStatic analysisRole-based access controlGraphDistributed computingSession (web analytics)Access controlContext (archaeology)Computer securityTheoretical computer scienceProgramming languageWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Delegation in access control is used to deal with exceptional circumstances, when a regular user is unable to perform their normal job and delegates all or part of it to others. These situations can be anticipated and built into the security design as static delegation; however, unforseen circumstances can still occur requiring dynamic delegation to be specified at runtime. This paper presents both static and dynamic delegation in the context of the Role Graph Model. To properly capture runtime events, we add sessions to the RGM. We then introduce session-oriented, dynamic delegation, a new concept in RBAC models, using an edge-labeling method. Constraints applicable to both static and dynamic delegation are examined.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score0.524

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.289
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