MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2553846793 · doi:10.1108/ics-04-2016-0030

Assessing IT disaster recovery plans

2016· article· en· W2553846793 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInformation and Computer Security · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisaster Management and Resilience
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAuditPreparednessDocumentationSoftware deploymentBusinessOperations managementAccountingPublic relationsPolitical scienceComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose This purpose of this paper is to assess information technology (IT) disaster recovery plans (DRPs) in publicly listed companies on Abu Dhabi securities exchange (ADX) in the United Arab Emirates. The authors assessed, among other things, DRP preparedness, documentation, employees’ preparedness and awareness and the most significant physical and logical risks that pose the most threads to drive the development of the DRP, etc. Design/methodology/approach The authors surveyed publicly listed companies on the ADX using a questionnaire adapted from past research papers as well as from audit programs published by the Information Systems Audit and Control Association. The surveys were completed through interviews with middle and senior management familiar with their firm’s IT practices. Findings The majority of the respondents reported having a DRP, and a significant number of the respondents reported that their top management were extremely committed to their DRP. Employees were generally aware of their role and the existence of the DRP. The greatest risk/threat to their organization’s IT system was logical risk followed closely by power and network connectivity loss as the second highest physical risk. The most highly ranked consequence of an IT disaster was loss of confidence in the organization. Research limitations/implications Because this paper only examined publicly listed companies on ADX, the research results may lack generality. Therefore, further research is needed in this area for determining the extent of the deployment of the DRP in the region. Practical implications Results of this paper could be used for IT DRP planning bench-marking purposes. Originality/value This paper adds value to research by investigating the current IT DRP practices by public companies listed on ADX.

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 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

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 communication0.0000.004
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.264 · 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