MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3049544617 · doi:10.1109/cjece.2020.2970737

Decentralized Identifiers and Verifiable Credentials for Smartphone Anticounterfeiting and Decentralized IMEI Database

2020· article· en· W3049544617 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Ahmad Sghaier Omar, Otman Basir

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlockchain Technology Applications and Security
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCounterfeitComputer securityIdentity managementVerifiable secret sharingIdentifierComputer scienceInternet privacyCryptographyUnique identifierSoftware portabilityBusinessAuthentication (law)Computer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The smartphone industry is lucrative for device counterfeiting with over 1.5 billion devices sold annually in the last three years. In 2017, it is estimated that there were around 184 million counterfeit devices, valued at 45.3 billion EUR, 12.9% of total sales. Beyond its economic impact, smartphone counterfeiting affects various aspects of user security and privacy, harms manufacturer reputation, and degrades service quality. Furthermore, since smartphone devices are attached to different mobile networks globally, challenges arise on how devices’ identities are maintained and verified and how the supply chain actors can access the device identity throughout its life cycle with less control from third parties. Decentralized identifiers (DIDs) and verifiable claims implemented on a distributed ledger technology present a powerful candidate to address this challenge. Thanks to Blockchain’s use of cryptographic identifiers, record immutability, and provenance, and the features provided by the DIDs and verifiable claims that enable identity management decentralization, portability, and discoverability. This article proposes a smartphone anticounterfeiting system based on an integrated approach of the technologies mentioned above. The proposed system eliminates the need for a central authority and provides the features of identity creation, transfer of ownership, and the capability of fast and secure reporting of stolen devices.

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)0.004
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations21
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Electrical and Computer EngineeringSame topicBlockchain Technology Applications and SecurityFrench-language works237,207