MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4230530947 · doi:10.1007/978-1-4842-4294-0_21

Web Applications

2019· book-chapter· en· W4230530947 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mike O’Leary

Bibliographic record

VenueApress eBooks · 2019
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWeb Application Security Vulnerabilities
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorld Wide WebWeb applicationContent management systemComputer scienceQuarter (Canadian coin)Web developmentDatabaseOperating systemWeb serviceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Web applications based on the LAMP stack of Linux, Apache, MySQL, and PHP are important and a common target of attackers. Some web applications like phpMyAdmin are primarily administrative; phpMyAdmin is used to remotely manage MySQL installations. Applications like Joomla and WordPress are content management systems that are used as the back end for many web sites; more than a quarter of web sites use WordPress or Joomla.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.301
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.3010.418

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.235
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApress eBooksSame topicWeb Application Security VulnerabilitiesFrench-language works237,207