MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170722426 · doi:10.1109/soca.2009.5410467

Towards a base ontology for privacy protection in service-oriented architecture

2009· article· en· W2170722426 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
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceOntologyVocabularyService providerService (business)World Wide WebService-oriented architectureInternet privacyComputer securityInformation privacyWeb serviceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The service consumer's confidence in the protection of their privacy is an important factor for the success of electronic services (e-services). It may increase if the service provider offers a description of its data practices. This description can be compared to what the consumer defines as appropriate practices. To allow the exchange of privacy-related descriptions and automatically compare them, the parties involved in the interaction should be able to use a common vocabulary. The goal of this paper is to present a base privacy ontology for e-services and a privacy framework for service-oriented architecture (SOA). The ontology offers a base vocabulary that can be extended to create ontologies specific to a given service domain and operating environment. The framework uses ontologies so that it can support service selection considering the consumer's privacy requirements. It extends SOA with provider policies and consumer preferences based on privacy ontologies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.752
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations17
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPrivacy, Security, and Data ProtectionFrench-language works237,207