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
We argue that application developers, while often viewed as allies in the effort to create software with fewer security vulnerabilities, are not reliable allies. They have varying skill sets which often do not include security. Moreover, we argue that it is inefficient and unrealistic to expect to be able to successfully teach all of the world's population of software developers to be security experts. We suggest more efficient and effective alternatives, focusing on those developers who produce core functionality used by other developers (e.g. those who develop popular APIs -- Application Programming Interfaces). We discuss the benefits of designing APIs which can be easily used in a secure fashion to encourage security. We also introduce two straw-man proposals which integrate security into the work- ow of an application developer. Data tagging and unsuppressible warnings provide the basis for further work where the most natural use (path of least resistance) results in secure code. We believe there are benefits to co-opting developers into programming securely.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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