A strategic modeling technique for information security risk assessment
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
Purpose This paper seeks to present a conceptual modeling approach, which is new in the domain of information systems security risk assessment. Design/methodology/approach The approach is helpful for performing means‐end analysis, thereby uncovering the structural origin of security risks in information systems, and how the root‐causes of such risks can be controlled from the early stages of the projects. Findings Though some attempts have previously been made to model security risk assessment in information systems using conventional modeling techniques such as data flow diagrams and UML, the previous works have analyzed and modeled the same just by addressing “what” a process is like. However, they do not address “why” the process is the way it is. Originality/value The approach addresses the limitation of the existing security risk assessment models by exploring the strategic dependencies between the actors of a system and analyzing the motivations, intents and rationales behind the different entities and activities constituting the system.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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