MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2294747460 · doi:10.1109/ichi.2015.80

Information System Hazard Analysis and Mitigation

2015· article· en· W2294747460 on OpenAlexaff
Fieran Mason-Blakley

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInformation and Cyber Security
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceProcess (computing)HazardRisk analysis (engineering)Information systemHazard analysisSystem safetyWork (physics)Data scienceOperations researchComputer securityEngineeringReliability engineeringMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Health information and communication technology (HICT) poses technology specific hazards to patient safety. The FDA's MAUDE database is one source among many which reports on HICT related patient injuries and deaths. The stagnancy of the safety of these technologies in the ten years following Institute of Medicine warnings indicates a lack understanding of the nature of these hazards. As we have remedied the issues in existing technology, a pandemic of similar issues will soon be on us as more HICT will be deployed in the next ten years than has been in the history of medicine. To address this gap, we have adapted Leveson's work on socio-technical safety engineering to develop a system theoretic model of information systems that re-imagines them as traditional control systems. We call this model System Theoretic Accidents Models and Processes for Information Systems (STAMP-IS). We have incorporated the model into a systematic safety engineering process we call information system hazard analysis and mitigation (ISHAM). ISHAM consists of an iterative four step process which includes team selection, modelling, analysis, and mitigation. It requires a process under investigation (PUI) as input, and retrospective accident data (RAD) ideally about the PUI itself, though RAD about a substantially similar process can be substituted.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score0.230

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 communication0.0000.003
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.203 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInformation and Cyber SecurityFrench-language works237,207