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

An Exploration of Geographic Authentication Schemes

2016· article· en· W2397107144 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.876
Threshold uncertainty score0.459

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.006
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.245
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