MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220718947 · doi:10.18280/isi.270107

Live-Streamed Video Reconstruction for Web Browser Forensics

2022· article· en· W4220718947 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mahmoud El-Tayeb, Ahmed Taha, Zaki T. Fayed

Bibliographic record

VenueIngénierie des systèmes d information · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Malware Detection Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencePopularityCacheThe InternetWorld Wide WebSuspectSocial mediaInternet privacyMultimediaLive streamingComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The way we use video streaming is evolving. Users used to broadcast their videos on social media platforms. These platforms enable them to interact from anywhere they want. Recently, there has been a wide range of people who use live video streaming platforms regularly. Thanks to high-speed Internet connections, live video streaming is now easier than ever. Many of these platforms broadcast live video feeds of electronic games, so young streamers use them to make money. Live streaming refers to media that is simultaneously broadcasted and recorded online in real-time. Despite the growing popularity of these platforms, there is a risk that this technology will be abused. Several other recorded cases of abuse have resulted in the emerging popularity of live streaming platforms. Many criminal and public proceedings may rely on information linked to a normal Web user's Online activity. Examining the web browser's history or cache may reveal helpful information about the suspect's activities. The evidence can reveal keys that might lead to this individual being convicted or clear. This work continues what was previously done to reconstruct cached video streams from YouTube and Twitter on Firefox. Our main aim in this paper is to examine data from a cached live stream using YouTube Gaming/Live and Nimo TV on Firefox and Chromium browsers.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.725

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.005
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIngénierie des systèmes d informationSame topicAdvanced Malware Detection TechniquesFrench-language works237,207