MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2806117508 · doi:10.1109/syscon.2018.8369532

ORGODEX: Authorization as a service (AaaS)

2018· article· en· W2806117508 on OpenAlexaff
Aaron Elliott, Scott Knight

Bibliographic record

Venue2018 Annual IEEE International Systems Conference (SysCon) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAccess Control and Trust
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCloud computingRole-based access controlComputer securityAccess controlScalabilityContext (archaeology)ImplementationSoftware deploymentCloud computing securityInformation securitySoftware engineeringDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) has been a popular solution for securing information systems for more than two decades. The cloud computing model offers a cost effective alternative for large distributed organizations while presenting unique security challenges. This is an important concern for organizations who have significant investments in large RBAC implementations where hundreds of roles have been engineered to realize security policy and safeguard information assets. In this work, we demonstrate the general applicability of ORGODEX, validating this new alternative for engineering scalable access control solutions in the context of cloud computing. Assuming the duties of a Project Manager and Security Architect, we use the ORGODEX model and methodology to collaboratively analyze roles, information, responsibilities and constraints within a multi-disciplinary project team. Next, we realize the deployment of a new shared software solution for two geographically distributed partner institutions. Finally, we publicize results in a comprehensible role and responsibility matrix, thereby facilitating the ongoing maintenance of both the software and authorization service models.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.005

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.306 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2018 Annual IEEE International Systems Conference (SysCon)Same topicAccess Control and TrustFrench-language works237,207