MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072435527 · doi:10.4018/jisp.2009040105

Information Technology Security Concerns in Global Financial Services Institutions

2009· article· en· W2072435527 on OpenAlexaff
Princely Ifinedo

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Information Security and Privacy · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInformation and Cyber Security
Canadian institutionsCape Breton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformation securityBusinessInformation security managementSocioeconomic statusFinanceEconomic securityFinancial servicesComputer securityComputer scienceSecurity information and event managementCloud computing securityEconomicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Practitioners in Global Financial Services Institutions (GFSI) know that they must concern themselves with protecting customer data and thwart emerging threats in their industry. The objective of this study is to provide a level of understanding and insight not apparent in a recent survey that investigated Information Technology (IT) security concerns across GFSI. This research builds on that prior effort and aims to investigate whether socio-economic factors differentiate IT security concerns across GFSI. It has been suggested that security concerns vary by socioeconomic contexts. The authors analysis of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (DTT) data showed that perceptions of IT security issues across surveyed GFSI varied on a few security concerns, but remained unchanged on a majority of issues when grouped according to selected socio-economic measures. This finding permitted us to suggest that IT security threats and risks in the financial sector compare reasonably well across socio-economic contexts. As a consequence, managers of GFSI may avail themselves of this information as they develop and propose measures (and counter-measures) for managing security concerns in their industry. Further, the attention of managers is alerted to areas where differences were noticed.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
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 score0.461
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.018
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Information Security and PrivacySame topicInformation and Cyber SecurityFrench-language works237,207