MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6999903463

Designing systems that people will trust

2005· article· en· W6999903463 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAccess Control and Trust
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPasswordSocial engineering (security)Action (physics)Key (lock)Security through obscurityWork (physics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As we have seen in a previous chapter [1], any security system is only as secure as its weakest link. Invariably, because of their social nature (and because of their human nature), the weakest links are often humans [2]. Thus, passwords get written on post-it notes and stuck to computer screens, or they become cycles of familiar words and numbers. In addition, social engineering succeeds in gaining inappropriate entry into supposedly secure systems because people will say things they're not supposed to, often to complete strangers who they just ‘like.' Also, security systems are often turned off because they're too difficult to use, obscure, or downright impossible to comprehend for mere mortals [3].

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.009
Scholarly communication0.0080.013
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.005

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.251 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations10
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicAccess Control and TrustFrench-language works237,207