MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2529951953

Challenges of Automated Teller Machine (ATM) Usage and FraudOccurrences in Nigeria â A Case Study of Selected Banks inMinna Metropolis

2010· article· en· W2529951953 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Solomon Adelowo Adepoju, Mohammed Enagi Alhassan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlobeComputer scienceOrder (exchange)ATM cardComputer securityElectronic bankingEmpirical researchElectronic funds transferTransfer (computing)BusinessFinanceWorld Wide WebThe InternetOperating systemStatistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over time, consumers have come to depend on and trust the Automatic Teller Machine (ATM) to conveniently meet their banking needs. But in recent time there have been a proliferation of ATM frauds in the country even and across the globe. Managing the risk associated with ATM fraud as well as diminishing its impact is an important issue that face financial institutions as fraud techniques have become more advanced with increased occurrences. The ATM is only one of many Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) devices that are vulnerable to fraud attacks. This paper carried out an empirical research to analyse the cases of ATM usage and fraud occurrences within some banks in Minna. The research identifies the common ATM fraud, how, where and when these frauds are perpetuated and then proffer security recommendation that should be adhered to by both the banks as financial institutions and the ATM users in order to eliminate or reduce it to the barest minimum.

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)0.003
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations41
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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