Bibliographic record
Abstract
The information is an essential resource in the daily activities of our socioeconomic life. The information is mainly collected, treated, protected and distributed in a digital format. This exposes it to the problems related to the use of information technologies and communication. The presence of vulnerability in a computer system can have an impact on the information security: loss, theft modification, forgery ... To prevent these situations, there are few methods of analysis of the security risks allowing to make a complete audit of the information system and to emit recommendations of correctives. On the other hand, safety standards were focusing to establish precise safety rules and give a certification to the systems which respect all these rules. However, the current methods of risk management try to help to estimate them, to implant appropriate controls, to be conforming to the regulations and to the laws of protection of the information and the private life, without being completely compatible with the current standards. This document aims to present, on the basis of certain criteria, the results of a study on various methods and safety standards of information systems, used in Europe and in North America.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.036 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".