MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Distinguishing Human Users from Bots

2014· book-chapter· en· W2477452358 on OpenAlex
Sajad Shirali-Shahreza

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

VenueAdvances in information security, privacy, and ethics book series · 2014
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicUser Authentication and Security Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCAPTCHAComputer scienceWorld Wide WebBlock (permutation group theory)Human–computer interactionMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human Interactive Proof (HIP) systems have been introduced to distinguish between various groups of users. CAPTCHA methods are one of the important branches of HIP systems, which are used to distinguish between human users and computer programs automatically and block automated computer programs form abusing Web services. The goal of these systems is to ask questions, which human users can easily answer but current computer programs cannot. In this chapter, the authors collect different pioneering works, which are done on CAPTCHA systems and create a complete survey of them. They collect more than 100 published works and classify them into 3 categories. This chapter contains different works, which are done for creating CAPTCHA methods and assessing CAPTCHA methods from different aspects, including the attacks done against CAPTCHA methods. This chapter can be used by researchers in CAPTCHA domains to quickly find previous works.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.832
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.009
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.260 · 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