MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396824727 · doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2024.104312

Enabling cyber resilient shipping through maritime security operation center adoption: A human factors perspective

2024· article· en· W4396824727 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

VenueApplied Ergonomics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMaritime Navigation and Safety
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer securityResilience (materials science)Domain (mathematical analysis)CrewProcess managementComputer scienceRisk analysis (engineering)EngineeringBusinessAeronautics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increased adoption of digital systems in the maritime domain has led to concerns about cyber resilience, especially in the wake of increasingly disruptive cyber-attacks. This has seen vessel operators increasingly adopt Maritime Security Operation Centers (M-SOCs), an action in line with one of the cyber resilience engineering techniques known as adaptive response, whose purpose is to optimize the ability to respond promptly to attacks. This research sought to investigate the domain-specific human factors that influence the adaptive response capabilities of M-SOC analysts to vessel cyber threats. Through collecting interview data and subsequent thematic analysis informed by grounded theory, cyber awareness of both crew onboard and vessel operators emerged as a pressing domain-specific challenge impacting M-SOC analysts' adaptive response. The key takeaway from this study is that vessel operators remain pivotal in supporting the M-SOC analysts' adaptive response processes through resource allocation towards operational technology (OT) monitoring and cyber personnel staffing onboard the vessels.

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 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 score0.867
Threshold uncertainty score0.965

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.233 · 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