MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3137236694 · doi:10.1016/s0969-4765(21)00035-7

Bridging the trust gaps in biometrics

2021· article· en· W3137236694 on OpenAlexaff
Samuel M. Curtis, Delfina Belli, Sacha Alanoca, Adriana Bora, Nicolas Miailhe, Yolanda Lannquist

Bibliographic record

VenueBiometric Technology Today · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Canadian institutionsFuture Earth
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiometricsDisinformationScrutinyInternet privacyBridging (networking)Computer securityBusinessPolitical scienceSocial mediaComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biometric systems promise to transform our lives by enhancing capabilities to rapidly detect, analyse and respond to human features and behaviours. Yet while we are at the dawn of the AI age, the potential applications of biometric tools have already triggered unease in the public and heightened scrutiny from policymakers. These concerns have emerged against the backdrop of a global ‘techlash’ fuelled by growing anxiety over privacy breaches, loss of data rights and disinformation.

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)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.108
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.175

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.108
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.013
Scholarly communication0.0130.034
Open science0.0020.014
Research integrity0.0070.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.004

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.248 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiometric Technology TodaySame topicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in DataFrench-language works237,207