How would information disclosure influence organizations’ outbound spam volume? Evidence from a field experiment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cyber-insecurity is a serious threat in the digital world. In the present paper, we argue that a suboptimal cybersecurity environment is partly due to organizations’ underinvestment on security and a lack of suitable policies. The motivation for this paper stems from a related policy question: how to design policies for governments and other organizations that can ensure a sufficient level of cybersecurity. We address the question by exploring a policy devised to alleviate information asymmetry and to achieve transparency in cybersecurity information sharing practice. We propose a cybersecurity evaluation agency along with regulations on information disclosure. To empirically evaluate the effectiveness of such an institution, we conduct a large-scale randomized field experiment on 7919 US organizations. Specifically, we generate organizations’ security reports based on their outbound spam relative to the industry peers, then share the reports with the subjects in either private or public ways. Using models for heterogeneous treatment effects and machine learning techniques, we find evidence from this experiment that the security information sharing combined with publicity treatment has significant effects on spam reduction for original large spammers. Moreover, significant peer effects are observed among industry peers after the experiment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".