MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2491638275

Computer Crimes and Counter Measures in the Nigerian Banking Sector

2010· article· en· W2491638275 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Olasanmi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhishingCybercrimeSpammingIdentity theftCredenceComputer scienceThe InternetComputer securityInformation and Communications TechnologyInternet privacyBusinessWorld Wide Web
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increase in the use of the information and communication technology (ICT) facilities such as computers and the Internet in the perpetration of criminal activities like spamming, credit card frauds, ATM frauds, phishing, identity theft, denial-of-service, and a host of others has lend credence to the view that ICT is contributing to crime in the banking sector. A greater understanding of such computer crimes may complement existing security practices by possibly highlighting new areas of counter measures. This paper thus assesses whether these crimes can be totally eradicated or not and whether the new generation banks experience more computer crimes than the old generation banks in Nigeria. Based on the findings of this study, the paper concludes that total eradication of computer crimes is not possible but can be highly reduced if internal control measures are adequately put in place within a bank’s organizational structure and that new generation banks seem to experience more crimes than their old generation counterparts due to the fact that majority of their services, which are automated, are subjected to technological changes at a rapid rate.

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)0.004
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations32
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Internet Banking and CommerceSame topicCybercrime and Law Enforcement StudiesFrench-language works237,207