MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2397107144 · doi:10.1109/tifs.2016.2570681

An Exploration of Geographic Authentication Schemes

2016· article· en· W2397107144 on OpenAlexafffund
Brent MacRae, Amirali Salehi‐Abari, Julie Thorpe

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicUser Authentication and Security Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoOntario Tech University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPasswordComputer scienceUsabilityAuthentication (law)Password policyAnnotationComputer securityWorld Wide WebHuman–computer interactionOne-time passwordArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We design and explore the usability and security of two geographic authentication schemes: GeoPass and GeoPassNotes. GeoPass requires users to choose a place on a digital map to authenticate with (a location password). GeoPassNotes-an extension of GeoPass-requires users to annotate their location password with a sequence of words that they can associate with the location (an annotated location password). In GeoPassNotes, users are authenticated by correctly entering both a location and an annotation. We conducted user studies to test the usability and assess the security of location passwords and annotated location passwords. The results indicate that both the variants are highly memorable, and that annotated location passwords may be more advantageous than location passwords alone due to their increased security and the minimal usability impact introduced by the annotation.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.008
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations21
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and SecuritySame topicUser Authentication and Security SystemsFrench-language works237,207