MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Foreground Trust as a Security Paradigm

2014· book-chapter· en· W2234279250 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

VenueAdvances in information security, privacy, and ethics book series · 2014
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicUser Authentication and Security Systems
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)Computer securityInternet privacyComputer scienceInformation securityEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Security is an interesting area, one in which we may well be guilty of misunderstanding the very people we are working for whilst trying to protect them. It is often said that people (users) are a weak link in the security chain. This may be true, but there are nuances. In this chapter, the authors discuss some of the work they have done and are doing to help users understand their information and device security and make informed, guided, and responsible decisions. This includes Device Comfort, Annoying Technologies, and Ten Commandments for designers and implementers of security and trust systems. This work is exploratory and unfinished (it should in fact never be finished), and this chapter presents a step along the way to better security users.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.804
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.012
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.258 · 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