Bridging the Bubbles: Connecting Academia and Industry in Cybersecurity Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>There is a perceived disconnect between how ad hoc industry solutions and academic research solutions in cyber security are developed and applied. Is there a difference in philosophy in how solutions to cyber security problems are developed by industry and by academia. What could academia and industry do to bridge this gap and speed up the development and use of effective cybersecurity solutions? This paper provides an overview of the most critical gaps and solutions identified by an interdisciplinary expert exchange on the topic. The discussion was held in the form of the webinar "Bridging the Bubbles: Connecting Academia and Industry in Cybersecurity Research" in November 2022 as part of the Rogers Cybersecure Catalyst webinar series. Panelists included researchers from academia and industry as well as experts from industry and business development. The key findings and recommendations of this exchange are supported by the relevant scientific literature on the topic within this paper. Different approaches and time frames in development and lifecycle management, challenges in knowledge transfer and communication as well as heterogeneous metrics for success in projects are examples of the evaluated subject areas.</p>
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".