Back to site
Citations
CCLcontextcontinuitylayer.org

Academic Reference Compendium · 2026-02-27

ContextContinuityLayer.org — Citations

Peer-reviewed literature / formal standards / official specsPreprints / working papers (arXiv, SSRN)

Foundations

Peer-reviewed

Dey, A. K. (2001). Understanding and using context. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 5(1), 4–7.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s007790170019

Defines context operationally and formalizes 'context-aware' usage patterns; a primary anchor for definitions.

Peer-reviewed

Schilit, B., Adams, N., & Want, R. (1994). Context-aware computing applications. Proceedings of WMCSA.

https://doi.org/10.1109/WMCSA.1994.16

Early taxonomy of context-aware application behaviors; useful historical grounding.

Peer-reviewed

Endsley, M. R. (1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37(1), 32–64.

https://doi.org/10.1518/001872095779049543

Perception–comprehension–projection model; links context completeness to decision quality.

Peer-reviewed

Strang, T., & Linnhoff-Popien, C. (2004). A context modeling survey. Proceedings of UbiComp.

Survey of context modeling approaches; helps structure a context-layer taxonomy.

Peer-reviewed

Abowd, G. D., Dey, A. K., Brown, P. J., Davies, N., Smith, M., & Steggles, P. (1999). Towards a better understanding of context and context-awareness. Proceedings of HUC '99.

Early conceptual clarification of context and context-aware behavior in ubiquitous computing.

Architecture

Peer-reviewed

Fielding, R. T. (2000). Architectural styles and the design of network-based software architectures (Doctoral dissertation, UC Irvine).

https://roy.gbiv.com/pubs/dissertation/fielding_dissertation.pdf

Canonical REST source; explains stateless constraints and architectural tradeoffs central to continuity discussions.

Peer-reviewed

Eugster, P. T., Felber, P. A., Guerraoui, R., & Kermarrec, A.-M. (2003). The many faces of publish/subscribe. ACM Computing Surveys, 35(2), 114–131.

https://doi.org/10.1145/857076.857078

Survey of pub/sub decoupling; foundational for event-driven context propagation.

Peer-reviewed

Kleppmann, M. (2017). Designing data-intensive applications. O'Reilly Media.

Practical distributed systems reference for state, consistency, replication, and logs—useful for context persistence.

Peer-reviewed

Gray, J., & Reuter, A. (1992). Transaction processing: Concepts and techniques. Morgan Kaufmann.

Classic transactions/ACID reference for continuity and correctness under concurrency.

Peer-reviewed

Bernstein, P. A., & Newcomer, E. (2009). Principles of transaction processing (2nd ed.). Morgan Kaufmann.

Modernized transaction foundations; maps to 'transactional context' and lifecycle.

Peer-reviewed

Moreau, L., et al. (2013). The PROV data model. W3C Recommendation.

https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/

Standard model for provenance; supports auditability and contextual traceability.

Peer-reviewed

NIST. (2006). Guide to computer security log management (SP 800-92).

https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-92

Operational audit/log management guidance—supports transparency and accountability claims.

Peer-reviewed

Hardt, D. (2012). The OAuth 2.0 authorization framework (RFC 6749).

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6749

Defines authorization delegation; useful to show what identity protocols cover (and don't).

Peer-reviewed

Sakimura, N., et al. (2014). OpenID Connect Core 1.0. OpenID Foundation.

https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html

Defines OIDC authentication/claims layer on OAuth; supports 'SSO limits' framing.

Peer-reviewed

World Wide Web Consortium. (2022). Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) v1.0. W3C Recommendation.

https://www.w3.org/TR/did-core/

Decentralized identifier standard; useful for 'distributed identity models.'

Peer-reviewed

World Wide Web Consortium. (2022). Verifiable Credentials Data Model v1.1. W3C Recommendation.

https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model-1.1/

Standard data model for portable claims; supports 'identity artifacts ≠ full context.'

Peer-reviewed

NIST. (2017). Digital Identity Guidelines (SP 800-63-3). (Withdrawn Aug 1, 2025; superseded by SP 800-63-4).

https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-63-3

High-authority identity assurance framework; include as historical baseline and note supersession.

Peer-reviewed

Dragoni, N., et al. (2017). Microservices: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. In Present and Ulterior Software Engineering. Springer.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67425-4_12

Survey of microservices and their tradeoffs; supports fragmentation across tool ecosystems.

Peer-reviewed

Newman, S. (2015). Building microservices. O'Reilly Media.

Practical service decomposition reference; highlights integration/state challenges that drive context fragmentation.

Peer-reviewed

Lamport, L. (1978). Time, clocks, and the ordering of events in a distributed system. Communications of the ACM, 21(7), 558–565.

https://doi.org/10.1145/359545.359563

Foundational for temporal context and causality in distributed logs/events.

Peer-reviewed

Kreps, J., Narkhede, N., & Rao, J. (2011). Kafka: A distributed messaging system for log processing. NetDB.

Log-based event streaming; important practical substrate for context propagation.

Governance

Peer-reviewed

Nissenbaum, H. (2004). Privacy as contextual integrity. Washington Law Review, 79(1), 119–158.

https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol79/iss1/10/

Foundational privacy theory framing appropriate information flows by context-specific norms.

Peer-reviewed

Barth, A., Datta, A., Mitchell, J. C., & Nissenbaum, H. (2006). Privacy and contextual integrity: Framework and applications. IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy.

Bridges contextual integrity into formal/security applications; useful for governance engineering.

Peer-reviewed

European Union. (2016). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation).

https://gdpr-info.eu/

Legal basis for minimization, purpose limitation, transparency, and portability (e.g., Art. 5, 20).

Peer-reviewed

OECD. (2013). The OECD privacy framework. OECD Publishing.

Widely cited policy principles that parallel minimization/purpose limitation; useful cross-jurisdiction anchor.

Peer-reviewed

ISO. (2022). ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Information security management systems — Requirements.

https://www.iso.org/standard/27001

Core ISMS requirements; supports governance controls, auditability, and risk management.

Peer-reviewed

NIST. (2023). AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0).

https://www.nist.gov/itl/ai-risk-management-framework

Operational framework for AI risk; maps to governance and accountability for context-using systems.

Peer-reviewed

ISO. (2023). ISO/IEC 23894:2023 Artificial intelligence — Risk management.

https://www.iso.org/standard/77304.html

Risk management standard for AI; supports structured governance beyond privacy law.

Peer-reviewed

Sandhu, R. S., Coyne, E. J., Feinstein, H. L., & Youman, C. E. (1996). Role-based access control models. Computer, 29(2), 38–47.

https://doi.org/10.1109/2.485845

Formal access control; useful for 'permissioned context usage' implementation patterns.

Peer-reviewed

Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism. PublicAffairs.

Socio-technical governance framing; supports ethical risk discussions around context capture and misuse.

Peer-reviewed

European Commission. (2024). Artificial Intelligence Act (final text as adopted).

EU AI governance backdrop; supports regulatory alignment claims for AI-integrated infrastructures.

AI & Cognition

Peer-reviewed

Vaswani, A., et al. (2017). Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30.

https://papers.nips.cc/paper_files/paper/2017/hash/3f5ee243547dee91fbd053c1c4a845aa-Abstract.html

Transformer architecture; context window and attention underpin modern LLM context handling.

Peer-reviewed

Bahdanau, D., Cho, K., & Bengio, Y. (2015). Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate. ICLR.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.0473

Introduced attention for seq2seq; often cited as precursor to transformer attention.

Peer-reviewed

Lewis, P., et al. (2020). Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive NLP tasks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.11401

Formalizes RAG; central to 'structured context injection' strategies.

Peer-reviewed

Karpukhin, V., et al. (2020). Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering. EMNLP 2020.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.04906

DPR retriever backbone for RAG systems; supports 'context sourcing' pipeline.

Peer-reviewed

Guu, K., et al. (2020). REALM: Retrieval-augmented language model pre-training. ICML 2020.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.08909

Retrieval-augmented pretraining; links memory/retrieval to context continuity.

Peer-reviewed

Izacard, G., & Grave, E. (2021). Leveraging passage retrieval with generative models for open domain question answering. EACL 2021.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.01282

Fusion-in-Decoder style retrieval+generation; demonstrates scaling context via retrieved passages.

Preprint

Graves, A., Wayne, G., & Danihelka, I. (2014). Neural Turing machines. arXiv:1410.5401.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.5401

Classic external-memory architecture; foundational for 'memory layer' framing in AI agents.

Preprint

Weston, J., Chopra, S., & Bordes, A. (2014). Memory networks. arXiv:1410.3916.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.3916

Introduces memory networks; links reasoning to stored context.

Preprint

Sukhbaatar, S., Weston, J., Fergus, R., et al. (2015). End-to-end memory networks. arXiv:1503.08895.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1503.08895

End-to-end differentiable memory; further supports long-range context handling.

Peer-reviewed

Gama, J., et al. (2014). A survey on concept drift adaptation. ACM Computing Surveys, 46(4), Article 44.

https://doi.org/10.1145/2523813

Survey of drift detection/adaptation; supports 'context drift' and lifecycle risk discussions.

Preprint

Yao, S., et al. (2023). ReAct: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. arXiv:2210.03629.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.03629

Agent pattern combining reasoning traces with tool actions; relevant to context scaffolding.

Preprint

Shinn, N., & Labash, B. (2023). Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning. arXiv:2303.11366.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.11366

Iterative self-reflection for agents; ties to maintaining and correcting context over time.

Preprint

Wei, J., et al. (2022). Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. arXiv:2201.11903.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.11903

Reasoning scaffolds; relevant to 'multi-step context injection' and structured prompts.

Industry — Healthcare

Peer-reviewed

Health Level Seven International. (2019). FHIR Release 4 (v4.0.1). HL7.

https://hl7.org/fhir/R4/

Core interoperability standard enabling clinical data exchange and partial context portability.

Peer-reviewed

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (1996). Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/index.html

Baseline privacy/security requirements in US healthcare; constrains 'permissioned context usage.'

Industry — Fintech

Peer-reviewed

Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. (2017). Basel III: Finalising post-crisis reforms.

https://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d424.htm

Global banking capital/risk framework; relevant to contextual risk exposure and audit trails.

Peer-reviewed

PCI Security Standards Council. (2022). PCI DSS v4.0.

https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/

Payment card security standard; maps to transaction context controls and auditability.

Industry — GovTech

Peer-reviewed

U.S. General Services Administration. (2020). Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP) security assessment framework.

https://www.fedramp.gov/

US government cloud authorization baseline; relevant for GovTech 'context governance' controls.

Cryptography

Preprint

IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive. (2026). Report 2026/1109.

https://eprint.iacr.org/2026/1109

Establishes that prevailing industry crypto-shredding claims are vendor assertions rather than formal security reductions — no published reduction from 'key destroyed' to 'data computationally inaccessible' existed across surveyed implementations at time of writing. Underpins STACCR's 'verifiable, not promised' framing in the value-proposition section.