MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Relationships between Information Security Concerns and National Cultural Dimensions

2011· book-chapter· en· W2484145441 on OpenAlexaff
Princely Ifinedo

Bibliographic record

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInformation and Cyber Security
Canadian institutionsCape Breton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformation securityBusinessPublic relationsPerceptionFinancial servicesInformation systems securityNational securityPolitical scienceMarketingInformation systemFinancePsychologyComputer securityManagement information systemsLawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates the relationships between the contextual factor of national culture and information security concerns in the global financial services industry (GFSI). Essentially, this study attempts to expand the breath of information provided in the recent 2009 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (DTT) survey, which reported such issues in the financial services industry. The inference from the 2009 DTT survey was that information security concerns across GFSI are being informed solely by industry-related standards or imperatives. As such, perceptions and attitudes towards such issues were thought to remain unchanged in differing contexts. Results from this study’s analysis showed that the perceptions of information security concerns in GFSI compared reasonably well, but also varied by some national cultural attributes to debunk such a claim. Corporate managers in the industry may benefit from this research’s findings as they formulate country-wide information security policies and strategies. As well, insights from this current effort indicate that it would be erroneous for practitioners to accept that entities in the financial services hold exactly the same view on information security issues in their industry. Future research avenues are discussed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.214 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIGI Global eBooksSame topicInformation and Cyber SecurityFrench-language works237,207