MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3128430109 · doi:10.1145/3436817

Information Integrity

2021· review· en· W3128430109 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

VenueACM Computing Surveys · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSecurity and Verification in Computing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceData integrityStandardizationTerminologyComputer securityInformation flowTrustworthinessPromotion (chess)Risk analysis (engineering)Business

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The understanding and promotion of integrity in information security has traditionally been underemphasized or even ignored. From implantable medical devices and electronic voting to vehicle control, the critical importance of information integrity to our well-being has compelled review of its treatment in the literature. Through formal information flow models, the data modification view, and the relationship to data quality, information integrity will be surveyed. Illustrations are given for databases and information trustworthiness. Integrity protection is advancing but lacks standardization in terminology and application. Integrity must be better understood, and pursued, to achieve devices and systems that are beneficial and safe for the future.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.250 · 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