MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2754654372 · doi:10.2308/isys-51908

Limiting the Search Space during Controls Evaluation of a Modified Information System

2017· article· en· W2754654372 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

VenueJournal of Information Systems · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLimitingComputer scienceAuditReliability (semiconductor)Space (punctuation)Control (management)Quality (philosophy)Control systemInformation spaceQuality assuranceInformation systemReliability engineeringOperations managementArtificial intelligenceEngineeringWorld Wide WebAccountingOperating systemBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Controls must be changed when information systems are modified. Audit, assurance, and quality-control (AAQC) personnel must evaluate the reliability of controls in the new system versions. Based on Bunge (1977, 1979) and Wand and Weber (1989a, 1990), we describe a model and search-space algorithm that AAQC personnel can use to determine where required control changes are likely to be located in the new system version, thereby mitigating the need for an exhaustive evaluation of all controls. To use the model and algorithm, AAQC personnel must have (1) accurate and complete requirements specifications for the old and new versions of the system, (2) a controls specification for the old version that covers all errors and irregularities that might occur, (3) evidence to conclude all controls for the old version are in place, adequate, and working, and (4) specifications for the new version expressed as a level structure of systems and subsystems.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.410
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.009
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.253 · 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