MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2798879067 · doi:10.1145/3409452

Comparative Analysis and Framework Evaluating Web Single Sign-on Systems

2020· preprint· en· W2798879067 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Computing Surveys · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicUser Authentication and Security Systems
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Toronto MississaugaUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsSingle sign-onCredentialUsabilityPasswordIdentity managementComputer scienceService providerAuthentication (law)Software deploymentComputer securityWorld Wide WebWeb serviceInternet privacyService (business)BusinessSoftware engineeringHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We perform a comprehensive analysis and comparison of 14 web single sign-on (SSO) systems proposed and/or deployed over the past decade, including federated identity and credential/password management schemes. We identify common design properties and use them to develop a taxonomy for SSO schemes, highlighting the associated tradeoffs in benefits (positive attributes) offered. We develop a framework to evaluate the schemes, in which we identify 14 security, usability, deployability, and privacy benefits. We also discuss how differences in priorities between users, service providers, and identity providers impact the design and deployment of SSO schemes.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.862
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.228 · 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