MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045881142 · doi:10.1109/issrew.2014.55

The Definition and Assessment of a Safety Argument

2014· article· en· W2045881142 on OpenAlexaff
Valentín Cassano, T. S. E. Maibaum

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInformation and Cyber Security
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArgument (complex analysis)Safety caseWork (physics)Risk analysis (engineering)Order (exchange)Face (sociological concept)Computer scienceEpistemologyLaw and economicsEngineeringBusinessSociologyMedicinePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

That safety cases are gaining prominence in safety regimes and regulations is a claim that, nowadays, may go more or less unchallenged. In brief, a safety case intends to make an explicit and compelling case that a system under consideration is safe for its intended use. When understood in this sense, the notion of a safety argument becomes one of the key elements of a properly formulated safety case. Herein, in what may be seen as work in progress, we comment on some preliminary thoughts regarding the challenges one must face in order to provide an adequate and sensible definition of what would count as being a safety argument. We contend that, without such a definition, the assessment of a safety argument is well-nigh impossible.

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInformation and Cyber SecurityFrench-language works237,207