Towards a compliance support framework for global software companies
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
Regulated companies are required to comply with the laws and regulations that apply to their industries. An important aspect of these authoritative rules is directly related to the way by which software systems, used by the regulated companies, are built, tested, and maintained. As a result, many regulated companies have turned to their software vendors to request their support in the compliance efforts. For most global software vendors, this new situation represents a significant challenge. From the technological standpoint, the complexity and sheer volume of typical authoritative rules poses a serious obstacle to implementing effective compliance support strategies. From the organizational perspective, the delivery of compliance support activities requires efficient business processes, skilled and valued employees, and a strong governance model with commitment at all management levels. To address these issues, we present a compliance support framework that aims to facilitate the linkage between compliance requirements, software development practices, and business process management. We believe that, if implemented properly, this framework can significantly improve the way software companies handle the increasing customer demand for compliance support. It can turn compliance support into a revenue-generating activity, and possibly a competitive advantage.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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