MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Intrusion Detection Systems

2005· book-chapter· en· W3144134378 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

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2005
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Security and Intrusion Detection
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer securityComputer scienceCompromiseDenial-of-service attackConfidentialityIntrusion detection systemScope (computer science)Network securitySecurity information and event managementInformation securityThe InternetCloud computing securityWorld Wide WebCloud computing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Along with its numerous benefits, the Internet also created numerous ways to compromise the security and stability of the systems connected to it. In 2003, 137529 incidents were reported to CERT/CC© while in 1999, there were 9859 reported incidents (CERT/CC©, 2003). Operations, which are primarily designed to protect the availability, confidentiality, and integrity of critical network information systems, are considered to be within the scope of security management. Security management operations protect computer networks against denial-of-service attacks, unauthorized disclosure of information, and the modification or destruction of data. Moreover, the automated detection and immediate reporting of these events are required in order to provide the basis for a timely response to attacks (Bass, 2000). Security management plays an important, albeit often neglected, role in network management tasks.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.740
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.206 · 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