Interplay of Human Factors and Secure Architecture Design using Model-Driven Engineering
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
When developing a secure software architecture, a development team must collaborate to make critical security-related decisions. The human factors of the development team members play a vital role in secure architecture design and therefore must be considered when forming or evaluating development teams for a software project. In this paper, we present a model-driven approach for studying the interplay of human factors and secure architecture design. Specifically, we propose a conceptual model for considering direct and indirect human factors of the development team during secure software design and a set of modeling languages to represent the human factors. We also provide a questionnaire-based methodology to evaluate human factors of development team members and define team profiles. The approach enables characterizing the human factors of team members desired to achieve the protection goals of software architecture assets and to determine which team members should be participating in the decision-making for the design to achieve the goals for assets by matching the desired human factors to members belonging to team profiles. This approach can improve the confidence on the decision-making capabilities of teams when faced with critical security-related design designs. We illustrate the approach using a generic SCADA system use case.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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