MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Improving Security from the Ground Up

2003· article· en· W1784584481 on OpenAlex

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

VenueInformation Systems Security · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInformation and Cyber Security
Canadian institutionsPricewaterhouseCoopers (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnforcementCompliance (psychology)AuditInformation securityBusinessPrime (order theory)Law enforcementComputer securityInformation security auditComputer scienceInternet privacyAccountingNetwork security policySecurity servicePolitical scienceLawPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of information security professionals through the years has been to not just get policies written but to also get compliance. They have long sought additional support in enforcing the information security policies of their companies. The support they have received usually comes from internal or external audit and has had limited success in influencing the behavior of the individuals who make up the bulk of the user community. Internal and external auditors have their own agendas and do not usually consider themselves prime candidates for the enforcement role. The security professional has had to look around the organization, trying to find the right person to help with the enforcement issue. This problem has become even more complex with the growth of Web-based applications and the resulting large increase in the size of the user community.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.008
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.201 · 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