Blockchain-Cloud Transparent Data Marketing: Consortium Management and Fairness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data are generated by Internet of Things (IoT) devices and centralized at a cloud server, that can later be traded with third parties, i.e., data marketing, to enable various data-intensive applications. However, the centralized approach is recently under debate due to the lack of (1) transparent and distributed marketplace management, and (2) marketing fairness for both IoT users (data sellers) and third parties (data buyers). In this paper, we propose a Blockchain-Cloud Transparent Data Marketing (Block-DM) with consortium management and executable fairness. First, we introduce a hybrid data-marketing architecture, where the cloud acts as an efficient data management unit and a consortium blockchain serves as a transparent marketing controller. Under the architecture, consent-based secure data trading and identity privacy for data owners are achieved with the distributed credential issuance and threshold credential openings. Second, with a consortium committee, we design a fair on/off-chain data marketing protocol. By financial incentives and succinct ‘commitments’ of marketing operations, the protocol can achieve the marketing fairness and effective detection of unfair marketing operations. We demonstrate the security of Block-DM with thorough analysis. We conduct extensive experiments with a consortium blockchain network on Hyperledger Fabric to show the feasibility and practicality of Block-DM.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".