Coupling of Inference and Access Controls to Ensure Privacy Protection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is devoted to the topic of coupling access and inference controls into security policies. The coupling of these two mechanisms is necessary to strengthen the protection of the privacy of complex systems users. Although the PrivOrBAC access control model covers several privacy protection requirements, the risk of inferring sensitive data may exist. Indeed, the accumulation of several pieces of data to which access is authorized can create an inference. This work proposes an inference control mechanism implemented through multidimensional analysis. This analysis will take into account several elements such as the history of access to the data that may create an inference, as well as their influence on the inference. The idea is that this mechanism delivers metrics that reflect the level of risk. These measures will be considered in the access control rules and will participate in the refusal or authorization decision with or without obligation. This is how the coupling of access and inference controls will be applied. The implementation of this coupling will be done via the multidimensional OLAP databases which will be requested by the Policy Information Point, the gateway brick of XACML to the various external data sources, which will route the inference measurements to the decision-making point.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.046 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".