Modeling and reasoning for confidentiality requirements in software development
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
Requirements engineering has attained an important role in software development over the last few years as developers and other stakeholders have realized the importance of adequate requirement analysis and design in software development processes. However, the specification and analysis of functional requirements is better established compared to non-functional requirements. This could be attributed to the fact that nonfunctional requirements, such as reliability, accuracy, performance, usability and security are often subjective. Security requirements are often incorporated in an ad hoc manner or considered at post-requirement phase. It is believed that addressing these requirements during the early phase of system development improves the quality of developed applications. Confidentiality is an aspect of a system's security requirements aimed at preventing unauthorized use of personal or corporate data. Concerns from the different stakeholders which can be diverging, have to be addressed, in realizing confidentiality requirements. These concerns are also usually influenced by proposed system functions. This research is aimed at precisely defining confidentiality requirements and applying this for modelling and reasoning in confidentiality requirements engineering
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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