Security Culture as an Expression of Values
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As digital technology rapidly evolves, researchers in the Digital Humanities (DH) face the challenge of securing their work and protecting stakeholders across the research life cycle. Security practices, encompassing data integrity, software assurance, and authenticated access, must align with the values of openness, transparency, and collaboration that underpin scholarly research. The increasing sophistication of cyber threats, coupled with the politicization of research and the rise of autocratic governments, necessitates a holistic approach to security that considers both cyber and physical dimensions. This paper explores the intersection of security culture and DH research, emphasizing the importance of trust, informed consent, and ethical collaboration. It argues that security practices should be user-centric, participatory, and transparent, reflecting the values and goals of researchers and participants. By integrating security best practices into research methods, scholars can mitigate risks, protect research assets, and ensure the continued availability and impact of scholarship in a world where threats are constantly evolving.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it