MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2182591795 · doi:10.11575/prism/30596

Access Control Policy Analysis with a Visualization Tool for Social Network Systems

2011· article· en· W2182591795 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohd Anwar

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInternet Traffic Analysis and Secure E-voting
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceUsabilityVisualizationAccess controlHuman–computer interactionCompromiseGraph drawingInformation visualizationControl (management)Social network (sociolinguistics)Process (computing)Task (project management)Computer securityWorld Wide WebData miningArtificial intelligenceSocial mediaEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding privacy implications of access control policies is a complex task for the users of social network systems. Users need tool support to articulate on access scenarios and perform policy analysis. In this work, we develop a prototypical tool for reflective policy assessment (RPA) – a process in which a user examines her profile from the viewpoint of another user in her extended neighborhood in the social graph. Since an unrestricted view of one's extended neighborhood may compromise the privacy of others, our visualization tool approximates the extended neighborhood of a user in such a way that policy assessment can still be conducted in a meaningful manner, while the privacy of other users is preserved. We verify the utility and usability of our tool in a within-subject user study.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicInternet Traffic Analysis and Secure E-votingFrench-language works237,207