MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2774517325 · doi:10.1007/978-1-4842-3048-0_10

Privileged Access Management

2017· book-chapter· en· W2774517325 on OpenAlexaff
Morey J. Haber, Brad Hibbert

Bibliographic record

VenueApress eBooks · 2017
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBusiness Strategy and Innovation
Canadian institutionsNorthern Ontario Academic Medicine Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccidentalBusinessComputer securityInternet privacyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PAM’s primary goal is to keep your organization safe from accidental or deliberate misuse of privileged credentials, the risks of which we have clearly defined. This threat is particularly relevant if your organization is evolving and experiencing change due to growth, new markets, and other business expansion initiatives. The larger and more complex your environment’s information technology systems become, the more privileged users you have. These include employees, contractors, remote, or even automated users.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.011
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0590.028

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApress eBooksSame topicBusiness Strategy and InnovationFrench-language works237,207