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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Networked sensors and actuators are increasingly permeating our computing devices, and provide a variety of functions for Internet of Things (IoT) devices and applications. However, this sensor data can also be used by applications to extract private information about users. Applications and users are thus in a tussle over access to private data. Tussles occur in operating systems when stakeholders with competing interests try to access shared resources such as sensor data, CPU time, or network bandwidth. Unfortunately, existing operating systems lack a principled approach for identifying, tracking, and resolving such tussles. Moreover, users typically have little control over how tussles are resolved. Controls for sensor data tussles, for example, often fail to address trade-offs between functionality and privacy. Therefore, we propose a framework to explicitly recognize and manage tussles. Using sensor data as an example resource, we investigate the design of mechanisms for detecting and resolving privacy tussles in a cyber-physical system, enabling privacy and functionality to be negotiated between users and applications. In doing so, we identify shortcomings of existing research and present directions for future work.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it