MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2288618372 · doi:10.1109/icitst.2015.7412092

Study of compliance of Apple's location based APIs with recommendations of the IETF Geopriv

2015· article· en· W2288618372 on OpenAlexaff
Rohit Beniwal, Pavol Zavarsky, Dale Lindskog

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsConcordia University of Edmonton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceLocation-based serviceFocus (optics)Mobile phoneArchitectureMobile devicePhoneWorld Wide WebInformation privacyComputer securityComputer networkTelecommunicationsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Location Based Services (LBS) are services offered by smart phone applications which use device location data to offer the location-related services. Privacy of location information is a major concern in LBS applications. This paper compares the location APIs of iOS with the IETF Geopriv architecture to determine what mechanisms are in place to protect location privacy of an iOS user. The focus of the study is on the distribution phase of the Geopriv architecture and its applicability in enhancing location privacy on iOS mobile platforms. The presented review shows that two iOS APIs features known as Geocoder and turning off location services provide to some extent location privacy for iOS users. However, only a limited number of functionalities can be considered as compliant with Geopriv's recommendations. The paper also presents possible ways how to address limited location privacy offered by iOS mobile devices based on Geopriv recommendations.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.082
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.082
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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