MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Participatory detection of identity theft on mobile social platforms

2017· article· en· W2792644378 on OpenAlexaff
Philip A. K. Lorimer, Victor Ming-Fai Diec, Burak Kantarcı

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpam and Phishing Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceExploitSocial network (sociolinguistics)Computer securityPopularityParticipatory sensingIdentity theftMobile deviceMobile edge computingSybil attackIdentity (music)Computer networkWireless sensor networkSocial mediaEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionData scienceWorld Wide WebArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Popularity of smart devices has led to increasing use of social networking services for various purposes. Despite its benefits, the ubiquity of social network services introduces vulnerabilities to malicious behavior such as Sybil attacks or identity theft. As the 5G Era leads to the convergence of social, wireless, and mobile networks by enabling synergistic interplay between these networks, it is possible to take advantage of mobile edge computing in the detection of compromised social profiles in mobile and online social network platforms. In this paper, we propose a framework for participatory detection of identity theft on social networking platforms which would exploit the computing power of the user equipment. The proposed framework empowers the connections of a user in a social platform to cooperate on the verification of a social profile. Through a proof-of-concept study, we show that the proposed framework can detect anomalous behavior in the social profile by having each connection work on a different feature subset without semantic analysis. Our numerical results show that if the initial matching threshold in a decision tree is set properly, compromised accounts can be identified by the mobile platforms of the connections without undergoing heavy central processing.

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 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 score0.614
Threshold uncertainty score0.358

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpam and Phishing DetectionFrench-language works237,207