MétaCan
Menu
← all works

Secure Software Development by Example

2005· article· en· 117 citations· W2168740635 on OpenAlex· 10.1109/msp.2005.103

Why is this work in the frame?

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

Canadian affiliationAn author listed a Canadian institution. This is the only route the usual frame has.

Full frame distilled prediction

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.

Candidate categories
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categories
none
Domain
Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
Study design
Candidate signal: Other designConsensus signal: none
Genre
Candidate signal: MethodsConsensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score
0.844
Threshold uncertainty score
1.000
Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated · codex-gemma-dda1882f352a

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread
0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation status
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

Abstract

When trying to incorporate security into a program, software developers face either too much theoretical information that they cannot apply or exhaustive and discouraging recommendation lists. This article gives an overview of security concerns at each step of a project's life cycle.

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.

The record

Venue
IEEE Security & Privacy
Topic
Advanced Malware Detection Techniques
Field
Computer Science
Canadian institutions
Ericsson (Canada)
Funders
not available
Keywords
Computer scienceSoftware security assuranceSoftwareComputer securityFace (sociological concept)Software developmentSoftware engineeringSecurity bugSoftware peer reviewSecure codingInformation securitySoftware constructionSecurity serviceSociologyProgramming language
Has abstract in OpenAlex
yes