MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2954712408 · doi:10.33423/jabe.v21i1.1455

Emerging Technologies and Cyber Risk: How do we secure the Internet of Things (IoT) environment?

2019· article· en· W2954712408 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Charla Griffy‐Brown, Mark Chun, Demetrios Lazarikos

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Business and Economics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlockchain Technology Applications and Security
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternet of ThingsComputer securityInternet privacyBusinessThe InternetComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cloud computing and the Internet of Things (IoT) have transformed businesses, enabling agile and costeffective IT infrastructure. The challenge is that these new opportunities create a co-mingled architecture which is difficult to secure. The complexity of this architecture is magnified with the IoT. Based on interviews with executive leadership teams and boards of directors facing these new environments, we developed the over-arching research question: How do we secure increasingly dynamic architecture in an environment while supporting and creating agile business growth? We then narrowed this down to more specific questions dealt with in this study. The research involved an in-depth exploration of this problem using a survey instrument and multiple qualitative methods involving business leaders from 59 companies between 2017 – 2018. Based on this analysis, we developed an information security framework for executives in this new environment that builds on previous work. This framework is called the Extended Risk-Based Approach and provides businesses with an approach for securing an enterprise amidst the IoT and agile architecture. Importantly, the data analyzed suggests that this approach is critically needed to address the rapidly growing complexity of enterprise architecture and the digital world we live and work.

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 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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.590
Threshold uncertainty score0.274

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.167
Teacher spread0.163 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Business and EconomicsSame topicBlockchain Technology Applications and SecurityFrench-language works237,207