MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121083696 · doi:10.2174/1874110x01206010026

Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision-Making for Information Security Risk Assessment

2012· article· en· W2121083696 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Open Cybernetics & Systemics Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInformation and Cyber Security
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceFuzzy logicRisk assessmentRisk analysis (engineering)Artificial intelligenceComputer securityMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Risk assessment is a major part of the ISMS process. In a complex organization which involves a lot of assets, risk assessment is a complicated process. In this paper, we present a practical model for information security risk assessment. This model is based on multi-criteria decision-making and uses fuzzy logic. The fuzzy logic is an appropriate model to assess risks and represents the practical results. The proposed risk assessment is a qualitative approach according to ISO/IEC 27005 standard. Main objectives and processes of business have been considered in this model and assessment of risk has been done in managerial and operational levels. This model was performed completely in the information technology section of a supply chain management company and the results show its efficiency and reliability.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.838
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.312 · 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