Data Trust Framework Using Blockchain Technology and Adaptive Transaction Validation
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
Trust is the main barrier preventing widespread data sharing. The lack of transparent infrastructures for implementing data trust prevents many data owners from sharing their data and concerns data users regarding the quality of the shared data. Data trust is a paradigm that facilitates data sharing by forcing data users to be transparent about the process of sharing and reusing data. Blockchain technology proposes a distributed and transparent administration by employing multiple parties to maintain consensus on an immutable ledger. This paper presents an end-to-end framework for data trust to enhance trustworthy data sharing utilizing blockchain technology. The framework promotes data quality by assessing input data sets, effectively manages access control, and presents data provenance and activity monitoring. We introduce an assessment model that includes reputation, endorsement, and confidence factors to evaluate data quality. We also suggest an adaptive solution to determine the number of transaction validators based on the computed trust value. The proposed data trust framework addresses both data owners' and data users' concerns by ensuring the trustworthiness and quality of the data at origin and ethical and secure usage of the data at the end. A comprehensive experimental study indicates the presented system effectively handles a large number of transactions with low latency.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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