MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4240770908 · doi:10.22215/timreview/837

Cybersecurity Capability Maturity Models for Providers of Critical Infrastructure

2014· article· en· W4240770908 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Walter Miron, Kevin Muita

Bibliographic record

VenueTechnology Innovation Management Review · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInformation and Cyber Security
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCritical infrastructureComputer securityCritical infrastructure protectionMaturity (psychological)BusinessCapability Maturity ModelComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IntroductionThe critical infrastructures that make our way of life possible are increasingly vulnerable to cyber-attack. These critical infrastructures are defined as assets or systems required for the security and well being of citizens, including systems to produce and distribute water, electricity, and fuel, and communication networks (Public Safety Canada, 2009; Yusta et

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 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

Citations40
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTechnology Innovation Management ReviewSame topicInformation and Cyber SecurityFrench-language works237,207