Towards Security-Focused Developer Personas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Developers often assume the responsibility for making software design decisions that could affect software security. Therefore, it is necessary to understand their security motivations, needs, and practices. This work aims to develop a structural framework for creating security-focused developer personas as a tool to guide the identification and segmentation of developer types from a security perspective. Through analyses of developer characteristics in the literature and interviews with 20 software developers, we identified 18 dimensions that form the basis of a structural framework to create security-focused developer personas. We demonstrate the utility of our framework for identifying developer archetypes with varying levels of security focus. Personas developed using our framework can be used to improve software security in various ways, such as guiding the design of security tools tailored to different types of developers and informing the development of security policies and incident response plans that meet developers’ needs and practices.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".