SGAC: A Multi-Layered Access Control Model with Conflict Resolution Strategy
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
Abstract This paper presents SGAC (Solution de Gestion Automatisée du Consentement / automated consent management solution), a new healthcare access control model and its support tool, which manages patient wishes regarding access to their electronic health records (EHR). This paper also presents the verification of access control policies for SGAC using two first-order-logic model checkers based on distinct technologies, Alloy and ProB. The development of SGAC has been achieved within the scope of a project with the University of Sherbrooke Hospital (CHUS), and thus has been adapted to take into account regional laws and regulations applicable in Québec and Canada, as they set bounds to patient wishes: for safety reasons, under strictly defined contexts, patient consent can be overriden to protect his/her life (break-the-glass rules). Since patient wishes and those regulations can be in conflict, SGAC provides a mechanism to address this problem based on priority, specificity and modality. In order to protect patient privacy while ensuring effective caregiving in safety-critical situations, we check four types of properties: accessibility, availability, contextuality and rule effectivity. We conducted performance tests comparison: implementation of SGAC versus an implementation of another access control model, XACML, and property verification with Alloy versus ProB. The performance results show that SGAC performs better than XACML and that ProB outperforms Alloy by two order of magnitude thanks to its programmable approach to constraint solving.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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