MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2752205915 · doi:10.14288/sa.v0i3.188841

The preservation of digital signatures on the blockchain

2016· article· en· W2752205915 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

VenueOpen Collections · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlockchain Technology Applications and Security
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlockchainComputer securityAuthentication (law)Hash functionDigital signatureComputer scienceLedgerCertificationPublic-key cryptographyCertificate authorityPublic key infrastructurePublic key certificateKey (lock)Distributed ledgerMerkle treeInternet privacyWorld Wide WebHash chainBusinessPolitical scienceAccountingLawEncryption

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The blockchain is a distributed network that records digital transactions on a publicly-accessible ledger. This paper explores whether blockchain technology is a suitable platform for the preservation of digital signatures and key pairs (public and private keys). Conventional infrastructures use digital certificates, issued by certification authorities, to declare the authentication of key pairs and digital signatures. However, this paper suggests that the blockchain’s hash functions can replace those certificates on the grounds of better privacy, that the nature of the network removes the problem of a single point of failure and that hashing is a form of authentication that does not require trust in a third-party authority. This article was an appendix to the research paper, Blockchain Technology for Recordkeeping which is available in the Reports section at http://www.blockchainubc.ca/main/dissemination.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
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 score0.923
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.223 · 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