MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cyber Criminal Profiling

2015· book-chapter· en· W2505638865 on OpenAlex
Mohammed S. Gadelrab, Ali A. Ghorbani

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in digital crime, forensics, and cyber terrorism book series · 2015
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital and Cyber Forensics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProfiling (computer programming)Offender profilingCyber crimeComputer scienceComputer securityCriminal investigationData scienceCriminologyWorld Wide WebSociologyData miningThe Internet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

New computing and networking technologies have not only changed the way traditional crimes are committed but also introduced completely brand new “cyber” crimes. Cyber crime investigation and forensics is relatively a new field that can benefit from methods and tools from its predecessor, the traditional counterpart. This chapter explains the problem of cyber criminal profiling and why it differs from ordinary criminal profiling. It tries to provide an overview of the problem and the current approaches combined with a suggested solution. It also discusses some serious challenges that should be addressed to be able to produce reliable results and it finally presents some ideas for the future work.

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.

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), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.505
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.014
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.223 · 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