Proceedings of the 2007 Workshop on New Security Paradigms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
NSPW is a unique workshop devoted to the examination of new paradigms in security and the critical study of existing paradigms. Each year since 1992, we examine proposals for new principles upon which information security can be rebuilt from the ground up. We conduct extensive, highly interactive discussions of these proposals, from which we hope both the audience and the authors emerge with a better understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of what has been discussed. It is both the focus on new paradigms and the nature of the interaction during the workshop that makes NSPW a very stimulating event. This year, we were fortunate to have a great program committee and outstanding submissions. In terms of geographical distribution, of the 24 members of the program committee, four were from Europe and the UK, four from Canada, and the rest from the USA. Each program committee member received 4-5 submissions. Each submission was reviewed under a double-bind system. The workshop received 27 submissions (four of which were from industry). Out of these, the program committee accepted 11. The breakdown of the submissions (and acceptances) by geographical region was as follows: 16 submissions had authors from North America (10 accepted), 9 from Europe and the UK (2 accepted), and 3 submissions had authors from other countries 3. Our program committee particularly looked for new paradigms, innovative approaches to older problems, early thinking on new topics, and controversial issues that might not make it into other conferences but deserved to have their try at shaking and breaking the mold. Following the review phase, the program committee held an extensive online discussion, which we believe improved the quality of the feedback to the authors and the program committee chairs. Participation in the workshop was limited to the authors of accepted papers, conference organizers, and a small number of other invitees. Each accepted paper was the focus of one hour of highly interactive discussion with frequent questions and brainstorming. Key points of the comments made during the discussions were scribed and handed to the authors at the end of each session. This feedback made it into the papers you will find in this volume: NSPW is one of the few venues that uses a post-workshop paper revision cycle to allow authors to refine their ideas (and the presentation of their ideas) based on the conversations and interactions at the workshop itself. We hope you will find the end result of this process informative, provocative, and inspiring.
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 | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.054 | 0.017 |
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".