MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2751067791 · doi:10.1109/jproc.2017.2725339

Privacy and Integrity Considerations in Hyperconnected Autonomous Vehicles

2017· article· en· W2751067791 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

VenueProceedings of the IEEE · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicular Ad Hoc Networks (VANETs)
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer securityMultitudeKey (lock)Cyber-physical systemWork (physics)Intelligent transportation systemPrivacy by DesignInformation privacyInternet privacyData scienceEngineeringTransport engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rapid advances in technology can be witnessed in the emergence of cyber-physical systems that pertain to several domains of our society. In transportation, we see the emergence of self-driving vehicles that utilize a multitude of sensors and intelligent learning techniques to navigate autonomously. Such vehicles are complex cyber-physical systems that are mobile and due to their sensor and intrinsic intelligence are able to collect, analyze, and capitalize upon an unprecedented amount of fine-grained data, as well as collaborate in real time with multiple stakeholders. Although such rich data can play a key role in data-driven economies of scale, this raises questions with respect to privacy- and integrity-dependent scenarios. In this work, the feasibility of ensuring integrity, and hence safety, while preserving privacy in the emerging hyperconnected vehicle scenarios is discussed. An exemplary case study on real-time vehicle interactions pertaining to map updates exemplifies the combination of privacy-enhancing technologies with integrity-protecting mechanisms.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.483
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.229
Teacher spread0.210 · 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