MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902621595 · doi:10.1287/isre.2018.0806

Bilateral Liability-Based Contracts in Information Security Outsourcing

2019· article· en· W2902621595 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 Systems Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicLaw, Economics, and Judicial Systems
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiabilityOutsourcingBusinessContract managementService providerService (business)Work (physics)Outcome (game theory)Computer securityFinanceComputer scienceMicroeconomicsEconomicsMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the efficiency of bilateral liability-based contracts in managed security services (MSSs). We model MSS as a collaborative service with the protection quality shaped by the contribution of both the service provider and the client. We adopt the negligence concept from the legal profession to design two novel contracts: threshold-based liability contract and variable liability contract. We find that they can achieve the first best outcome when postbreach effort verification is feasible. More importantly, they are more efficient than a multilateral contract when the MSS provider assumes limited liability. Our results show that bilateral liability-based contracts can work in the real world. Hence, more research is needed to explore their properties. We discuss the related implications. The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2018.0806 .

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)0.007
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.623
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.005
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.013

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.230 · 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