MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2897010537 · doi:10.1142/s012962641850010x

The Importance of Applying Security Practices in Wireless Communication: Bluetooth Low Energy and RFID

2018· article· en· W2897010537 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

VenueParallel Processing Letters · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBluetooth and Wireless Communication Technologies
Canadian institutionsAlgoma UniversityLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSophisticationBluetoothComputer scienceExploitWirelessComputer securityBluetooth Low EnergyField (mathematics)Radio-frequency identificationIdentification (biology)Internet of ThingsEnergy (signal processing)CreativityInternet privacyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Security is a concept which people recognize as important, yet regularly ignore for reasons such as cost or design constraints. The world is quickly shifting towards the wireless with phenomena akin to the Internet of Thing (IoT) accelerating this progression. Technologies like Bluetooth Low Energy and Radio Frequency Identification are greatly entwined with this trend, and research has been made into reinforcing protection methods. However, security is a choice made by the designer and more often than not is given decreased priority. With the improved creativity and sophistication of malicious exploits this is becoming far less acceptable. Theft of data is trivial for a user with the correct skillset and will be successful without proper defences. Further research needs to be done in the field, and encouraging consistent security practices is an appropriate start.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.693
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.252 · 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