A systematic review of information security risk assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many standards exist to guide the process of risk assessment, particularly in the field of information security.This leads to many, subtly different, definitions of risk analysis, evaluation and assessment.Consequently, researchers often confuse these terms and disciplines, which leads to further confusion within the community.In this sense, it is important to come to a common understanding of the processes and terminology to clarify research in this area.A common approach to achieve this goal is to carry out a literature review.This paper takes a formal approach to the literature review based on the ideas of the Cochrane group.The result is a systematic review of risk assessment in the field of information security.We present a systematic review of over 80 research papers published between 2004 and 2014.The main contribution of our paper is to construct a classification of these published papers into seven types.This classification aims to help researchers obtain a clear and unbiased picture of the terminology, developments and trends of information security risk assessment in the academic sector.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.133 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".