MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165406434 · doi:10.1109/bdim.2007.375016

A Policy-Based Metrics Framework for Information Security Performance Measurement

2007· article· en· W2165406434 on OpenAlexafffund
Clemens Martin, Mustapha Refai

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
FundersUniversity of Ontario Institute of Technology
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer security modelMeasure (data warehouse)Security policyProcess (computing)Work (physics)Information securitySet (abstract data type)Frame workInformation security standardsFrame (networking)Security information and event managementPerformance measurementInformation security auditStandard of Good PracticeComputer securityBusiness processSecurity serviceCloud computing securityData miningNetwork security policyWork in processBusinessEngineeringOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article we are proposing a new approach to measure and monitor overall IT security performance. This approach is based on a policy-based frame work that establishes a methodology to measure security performance; it also incorporates a policy performance indicator. The framework is composed of a number of interacting components: security policies and procedures model, a business security goal and targets repository, a set of security measurement processes, a metrics development and analysis process, and a central metrics and measurement model. Lastly a module that derives an overall security posture and generates reports detects trends and develops recommendations. Our approach assists in determining the security posture of an organization, which is becoming a necessity for legal and regulatory compliance.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.772
Threshold uncertainty score0.287

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.262 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesFrench-language works237,207