Addressing Audit and Accountability Issues in Self-Sovereign Identity Blockchain Systems Using Archival Science Principles
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
Self-sovereign identity (SSI) systems are novel blockchain-based solutions that are said to shift the control of data records from organizations to individuals. Contrary to conventional blockchains, such as Bitcoin or Ethereum, many SSI systems do not capture on ledger the exchange of transactional data between individuals. By not capturing the exchange of transaction data such SSI systems have the advantage of complying with privacy regulations such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulations, but, at the same time, have the disadvantage of not capturing evidence that an exchange has happened. Such evidence, however, may be needed for audit and accountability purposes. To achieve these objectives and to preserve privacy, we leverage archival principles to introduce a novel concept of a proof registry, which we define as a set of technical components, data structures, and process flows, that assures that authoritative records offering evidence of transactions is captured, stored, and accessible. This solution solves the compliance and accountability problem while preserving the self-sovereignty and privacy of involved parties.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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