MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2588724628 · doi:10.1017/aju.2017.6

Generative Security: Adversarial Design and Conflict of Laws

2016· article· en· W2588724628 on OpenAlexaff
Niranjan Sivakumar

Bibliographic record

VenueAJIL Unbound · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCybersecurity and Cyber Warfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of King's College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdversarial systemDemocracyPolitical scienceObject (grammar)Power (physics)National securityGenerative grammarLawPresidential systemComputer securityComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The data breach of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) during the U.S. presidential election of 2016 is multi-faceted and has wide ranging implications. The discourse of “cybersecurity” is increasingly thought of through the lens of states and other powerful actors like large corporations, as a conflict or war that is waged by specialized combatants while civilians are relegated to the sidelines and are the victims of digital malfeasance or the object of regulation and education from those in power.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.033
Scholarly communication0.0090.010
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAJIL UnboundSame topicCybersecurity and Cyber Warfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207