MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310636918 · doi:10.46382/mjbas.2021.5208

Mitigating the Integrity Issues in Cloud Computing Utilizing Cryptography Algorithms

2021· article· en· W4310636918 on OpenAlex
Satinderjeet Singh

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMediterranean Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Data Security Solutions
Canadian institutionsPricewaterhouseCoopers (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCloud computingComputer scienceComputer securityCryptographyCloud computing securityEncryptionConfidentialityAuthentication (law)Information sensitivity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The cloud can be created, monitored, and disseminated with slight disruption or service provider involvement. Among the most rapidly evolving phenomenon, cloud computing provides users with a variety of low-cost solutions. By putting the ideas of confidentiality, authentication, encryption techniques, non-repudiation, intrusion prevention, and effectiveness into practice, the challenge of cloud information security for computers and cloud storage security has been resolved in its totality. As cloud security has become a growing problem, cloud technology is prominent throughout many emerging disciplines of study in which a significant amount of research is conducted in this field. Each of these efforts uses a cryptography approach. Current solutions to these issues have certain important drawbacks. To protect sensitive information stored in the cloud, one needs to design programs that implement hybrid cryptographic mechanisms using challenging encryption algorithms. This research elaborates on an examination of using cryptographic techniques to mitigate the integrity problems in cloud computing.

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.

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)0.003
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.504
Threshold uncertainty score0.423

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.250 · 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