MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4231765250 · doi:10.1007/978-1-4842-3627-7_11

Remediation

2018· book-chapter· en· W4231765250 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
KeywordsEnvironmental remediationVendorImplementationVulnerability (computing)Computer securityBusinessPublic disclosureService (business)Internet privacyComputer scienceEngineeringMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While the cyber security community struggles with identifying vulnerabilities, classifying them, and providing remediation, vendors have taken on the problem with their own methodologies, service-level agreements, and public disclosure policies. As we have seen, it is one thing to identify a vulnerability and an entirely different problem to apply a remediation or mitigation strategy. To compound the problem, vendor implementations of public disclosure vary greatly, and the technologies they implement, even on similar platforms, to deploy security patches are not always consistent. To that end, we need to look at the leading vendors first and their patch remediation strategies and disclosure schedules.

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 score0.882
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.201 · 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