MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2808087274 · doi:10.1007/978-1-4842-3627-7_22

Tales from the Trenches

2018· book-chapter· en· W2808087274 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

VenueApress eBooks · 2018
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInformation and Cyber Security
Canadian institutionsNorthern Ontario Academic Medicine Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoint (geometry)Internet privacySound (geography)BusinessComputer securityEngineeringPublic relationsComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the last few decades, I (Morey – and not John Titor as some readers may believe) have experienced a plethora of use cases and clients that inherently did not understand the risks to their assets and processes within their own organizations. In that time, I have documented my favorite ones and included them in this book as lessons learned: tales from the trenches. They may sound personal (written in the first person) and even a little loose, but they make good stories we all can learn from and how not to make the same mistakes. These short stories are from real clients and sales teams that failed miserably managing information technology security, vulnerabilities, processes, and sales cycles. Hopefully, the results become a reference point for all of us – what not to do when trying to protect our precious resources.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.841
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.190 · 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