MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029195448 · doi:10.1016/s1353-4858(12)70083-1

Seek and destroy

2012· article· en· W2029195448 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

VenueNetwork Security · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital and Cyber Forensics
Canadian institutionsWorld Federation of Science Journalists
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFalling (accident)Computer securityPlan (archaeology)Computer scienceFace (sociological concept)Data lossRisk analysis (engineering)BusinessDatabaseGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Organisations are going to great lengths to protect the data on their networks but many are falling at the final hurdle by failing to delete data properly from end-of-life equipment. Part of the problem appears to be that, on the face of it, it seems easy to delete data securely. But all too often the data proves to be recoverable. Tracey Caldwell explains how a lifecycle approach to managing data can identify data and plan for its proper and efficient destruction. Organisations are going to great lengths to protect data on their networks. But many are falling at the final hurdle by failing to delete data properly from end-of-life equipment. This leaves them vulnerable – not just to the leak of sensitive information, but also potential fines and other legal ramifications.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.366
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.188 · 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