MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320523479 · doi:10.9708/jksci.2016.21.2.137

Control of International Cyber Crime

2016· article· en· W2320523479 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jong-Ryeol Park, Sang-Ouk Noe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Korea Society of Computer and Information · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCybersecurity and Cyber Warfare Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTreatyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The followings are required to establish uniform principle of criminal jurisdiction for international cyber crime into customary international law; (1) clear guideline of UN for promoting national practice (2) formation of general practices based on these guidelines (3) these general practices should obtain legal confidence. International society is in close cooperation for investigating and controlling cyber threat. The US FBI has closed down the largest online crime space called 'Darkcode' and prosecuted related hackers based on joint investigation with 19 countries including England, Australia, Canada, Bosnia, Croatia, Israel, and Rumania. More and more people in Korea are raising their voices for joining cyber crime treaty, 'Budapest Treaty.' Budapest Treaty is the first international treaty prosecuting cyber crime by setting out detailed regulations on internet criminal act. Member countries have installed hotline for cyber crime and they act together. Except European countries, America, Canada, and Japan have joined the treaty. In case of Korea, from few years before, it is reviewing joining with Ministry of Foreign affairs, Ministry of Justice and the National Police but haven't made any conclusion. Different from offline crime, cyber crime is planned in advance and happens regardless of border. Therefore, international cooperation based on position of punishing criminals and international standards. Joining of Budapest international cyber crime treaty shall be done as soon as possible for enhancing national competence.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.473
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.236 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Korea Society of Computer and InformationSame topicCybersecurity and Cyber Warfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207