MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

From Capture to Court in Crime Scene Investigations: A Blockchain-Based Tamper-Proof File Sharing System Utilizing IPFS Multihash

2025· article· W7116880667 on OpenAlexaff
Mfundo A. Maneli, Omowunmi Isafiade, Oluwasola Mary Adedayo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital and Cyber Forensics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUploadHash functionWorkstationThroughputFile transferFile systemTransfer (computing)File sizeDigital forensics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research paper examines the application of blockchain technology in crime scene investigations, with a particular focus on enhancing the preservation and security of evidence through the cryptographic watermarking of images. Despite several research initiatives, there has been limited investigation into the practical applications of traditional crime scene data sharing. Five LiDAR-enabled devices were selected for their ability to generate accurate 3D point clouds: the iPad M1, iPad M2 Pro, iPhone 14 Pro, iPhone 14, and iPhone 15 Pro Max. The InterPlanetary File System (IPFS) served as the medium for generating Secure Hash Algorithm (SHA)-256 hash values, with two Internet of Things (IoT) workstations evaluated based on tampering and throughput metrics. Throughput testing revealed no correlation between file size and transfer times over IPFS. Notably, the iPhone 14 Pro outperformed the iPad M1 Pro, achieving superior transfer performance despite the iPad's higher file density of 3287.04 KB compared to the iPhone's 2560 KB. Specifically, the iPhone transferred files in 87 seconds, while the iPad Pro took 141 seconds. This suggests that storage size does not significantly impact data transfer efficiency on the network. In the tampering evaluation, files uploaded to IPFS were hashed and distributed via InterPlanetary Name System (IPNS). Workstation Two received and modified these files, which were subsequently re-uploaded. Ultimately, Workstation One successfully detected the alterations. The manipulation techniques employed resulted in slight deviations in hash values, ensuring that the originally uploaded data retains a unique key that triggers alerts if any changes are made.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.784
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDigital and Cyber ForensicsFrench-language works237,207