MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4287150833 · doi:10.18280/ijsse.120304

Cybersecurity Training in Norwegian Critical Infrastructure Companies

2022· article· en· W4287150833 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Safety and Security Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInformation and Cyber Security
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreparednessBest practiceNorwegianMaturity (psychological)BusinessCritical infrastructureTraining (meteorology)ImplementationCurriculumSecurity awarenessPublic relationsComputer securityKnowledge managementEngineeringPsychologyInformation securityComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human preparedness is a critical aspect of critical infrastructure (CI) cybersecurity. Many efforts, including educational curricula and training programs, have been taken at both national and company level to ensure human preparedness in CI incident response. These efforts are usually based on corporate requirements or external guidelines and policies. However, the best practices recommended for these efforts in the literature differ significantly from the measures implemented in CI companies. For this reason, we compared state of practice in cybersecurity awareness and training in selected CI companies with the recommendations in literature, aiming to identify the areas that CI companies need to increase efforts for further security implementations. Specifically, we conducted interviews (n=7) and sent out questionnaires to cybersecurity personnel (n=11) in different CI sectors of Norway. The collected data were analyzed to establish the commonalities, differences, and areas of concern among the interviewees, with respect to certain critical attributes. All Norwegian companies involved in the study offered some type of awareness or training activities to their employees, but these activities varied greatly in the level of maturity. Besides, we noted several limitations in methods and contents. According to many participants, the team skills, communication skills, and managerial skills were often inadequately developed. Additional limitations in delivery methods were noticed, too. Finally, we suggested the solutions from the best practices in the literature, and pointed out the areas where the literature has not provided effective measures.

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)0.001
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 score0.818
Threshold uncertainty score0.437

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.221 · 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