MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2770487395 · doi:10.1109/issrew.2017.14

Principles for Systematic Development of an Assurance Case Template from ISO 26262

2017· article· en· W2770487395 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSafety Systems Engineering in Autonomy
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFunctional safetyRisk analysis (engineering)Safety assuranceSafety caseComputer scienceQuality assuranceProgram assurancePlan (archaeology)Systems engineeringSoftware quality assuranceEngineering managementEngineeringSoftwareSoftware engineeringSoftware developmentReliability engineeringBusinessOperations managementSoftware quality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A failure in a critical system can cause death, injury, financial loss, and environmental damage. To develop safe and trustworthy systems, we need to plan the development and assessment of system functionality in advance. Assurance Cases are a generalization of Safety Cases, and are gaining momentum as a preferred way of demonstrating assurance of critical properties in complex software-intensive systems. To cope with the lack of standardized assurance structures, and to encourage safety assessment prior to development, we previously proposed the use of an assurance case template. The principles presented here can be used to build an assurance case template that complies with the functional safety standard, ISO 26262 in a cost-effective way. In the future, such principles may lead to semi-automated development of these templates.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.358
Threshold uncertainty score0.686

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSafety Systems Engineering in AutonomyFrench-language works237,207