MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220689182 · doi:10.5539/cis.v15n2p43

A Survey of Biometric Authentication Technologies Towards Secure And Robust Systems: A Case Study of Mount Kenya University

2022· article· en· W4220689182 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Boniface Mwangi Wambui, Joyce W Gikandi, Geoffrey Mariga Wambugu

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer and Information Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceBiometricsComputer securityAuthentication (law)PopulationInternet privacy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In response to the increased demand for more effective authentication methods, the usage of biometric authentication to secure systems against unwanted access has grown. Because of the recent COVID-19 pandemic outbreak, any direct physical contact with the system should be avoided. Furthermore, current authentication systems lack the necessary security features, making them vulnerable to cyber risks such as forgery by unethical employees and unauthorized users. The goal of this paper is to investigate the existing biometric authentication systems and propose the best security models to overcome the weaknesses of existing technologies. The study employed mixed methodology, which was qualitative and quantitative in nature and relied on primary and secondary sources of data. The researcher collected the data from a population of 300 staff of Mount Kenya University with a sample size of 169 respondents. The R2 value on the relationship between the studied dependent and independent variables was R2 = 0.792 showing a good fit of the model since is greater than 50% of the test item used in the case study. Therefore the study recommends that institutions to implement a contactless biometric system to eliminate physical contact and use multimodal system that will help overcome the existing challenges associated with unimodal systems. There are still gaps for future researchers where they need to focus on the various decision algorithms that are best efficient in verifying users before they are authenticated in the system.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.305
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputer and Information ScienceSame topicPrivacy, Security, and Data ProtectionFrench-language works237,207