MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912278270

Proceedings of the second annual workshop on Security and privacy in medical and home-care systems

2010· article· en· W2912278270 on OpenAlexaff
Tara Whalen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSession (web analytics)CertificationHealth careVulnerability (computing)Work (physics)Computer scienceInternet privacyComputer securityPolitical scienceEngineeringWorld Wide Web
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This volume contains the papers presented at the second annual ACM Workshop on Security and Privacy in Medical and Home-Care Systems (SPIMACS), sponsored by ACM SIGSAC and held in conjunction with the 17th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS). This half-day workshop brought together a diverse group of professionals to discuss the research challenges of protecting patients and medical data. Each submission received at least four reviews from the PC members, and we selected the best three papers for our opening session. The papers included here explore weaknesses in the certification process for Electronic Health Records; propose a vulnerability taxonomy for implanted medical devices; and present a security analysis of an Electronic Patient Dossier system in the Netherlands. In addition to research papers, the workshop included a panel focusing on the interdisciplinary aspects of research, practice, and policy work in technology and health care. This research discussion will continue to evolve in the future, and we hope that these proceedings will help shape future research agendas on health privacy and security.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.190

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0570.013

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPrivacy, Security, and Data ProtectionFrench-language works237,207