MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2235707348

ENC Protection Schemes: Central Technology and Policy Issues

2000· article· en· W2235707348 on OpenAlexaff
Michael J. Casey

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Hydrographic Review · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMaritime Security and History
Canadian institutionsCanadian Hydrographic Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer securityKey (lock)LicenseAuthentication (law)Key managementEncryptionChartData Protection Act 1998BusinessComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several countries have taken steps to protect copyright data, some using judicial means and others implementing protection systems. Some Hydrographic Offices (HOs) feel that ENCs in particular, need to be protected from piracy and/or deliberate tampering. These issues are not unique to ENC (Electronic Navigational Chart) distribution but form a basic part of e-commerce infrastructure. A modern public key infrastructure system addresses the needs of data authentication, data security and non-repudiation. There are both technology and policy issues when one considers a protection system. The implementation of a tight security system along the entire distribution chain is necessary to make the system effective. Despite modern advances in encryption technology, there are some major impediments to achieving the goals of a security system. The complexities of key management and the acceptance of the user community are two of these. There is also the ethical issue of denying a ship access to ENCs once the license period has ended. The ship may have no other chart information on board. PRIMAR's Security System is currently gathering important operational experience in operating a protection system.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Hydrographic ReviewSame topicMaritime Security and HistoryFrench-language works237,207