MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2398647274 · doi:10.17706/jsw.10.7.784-797

A Metamodel for Hybrid Access Control Policies

2015· article· en· W2398647274 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

VenueJournal of Software · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAccess Control and Trust
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMetamodelingAccess controlControl (management)Distributed computingComputer networkSoftware engineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modelling is a proven technique to communicate and illustrate complex specifications in a wide range of disciplines. Access control (AC) specification is not an exception in this regard. Actually, it is characterized by the sensitivity and criticality of its contents where clarity and formalism are yet essential desired goals. In a metamodelling approach where textual languages and visual models are two equivalent forms of specifications, we propose an AC metamodel, setting the stage for its derived textual language. Our metamodel is characterized by its formal semantics, its modularity and refinement method, and its integration means for concurrent application of multiple reusable AC models. These characteristics enable AC specification with better readability, clarity, unambiguity and properties verification support.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.774
Threshold uncertainty score0.250

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.291 · 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