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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Provenance information corresponds to essential metadata that describes the entities, users, and processes involved in the history and evolution of a data object. The benefits of tracking provenance information have been widely understood in a variety of domains; however, only recently have provenance solutions gained interest in the security community. Indeed, on the one hand, provenance allows for a reliable historical analysis enabling security-related applications such as forensic analysis and attribution of malicious activity. On the other hand, the unprecedented changes in the threat landscape place demands for securing provenance information to facilitate its trustworthiness. With the recent growth of provenance studies in security, in this work we examine the role of data provenance in security and privacy. To set this work in context, we outline fundamental principles and models of data provenance and explore how the existing studies achieve security principles. We further review the existing schemes for securing data provenance collection and manipulation known as secure provenance and the role of data provenance for security and privacy, which we refer to as threat provenance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.079 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.028 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 it