MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982535047 · doi:10.5430/jms.v5n2p70

Mobile Users' Strategies for Managing Phishing Attacks

2014· article· en· W1982535047 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rasha Salah El-Din, Paul Cairns, John A. Clark

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management and Strategy · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpam and Phishing Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhishingInternet privacyComputer securityComputer scienceBusinessWorld Wide WebThe Internet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Phishing is the use of electronic media, like emails and SMS messages, to fraudulently elicit private information or obtain money under false pretence. Though there is considerable interest in phishing as a security problem, there is little previous research from the human factors perspective and in particular very little empirical support for what makes phishing effective or successful and therefore how best to defend people from it. In this paper, we report findings of an experimental lab study to investigate individuals' strategies dealing with mobile phishing attacks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Management and StrategySame topicSpam and Phishing DetectionFrench-language works237,207