MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2530321778 · doi:10.5539/ass.v12n11p79

Juridical Study of Crimes Committed with Computer

2016· article· en· W2530321778 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Soraya Rostami

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIgnoranceCategorizationProperty (philosophy)Class (philosophy)Order (exchange)Realization (probability)Computer fraudLawBusinessPsychologyLaw and economicsInternet privacyComputer securityPolitical scienceSociologyComputer scienceEpistemologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

By development of computer networks, computer -related crime spreading immoral that had negative impact on social systems including families and organizations and, more children were invaded by, the spread of computer crimes in the third world called cultural invasion. Committing dishonest acts in ignorance or belief that the right to intervene in the operation of computer systems or data entry, or data deletion, or the messages. those committed acts does not categorize in fraud documentary, if the aforementioned act intended to endamage business rivals and if there is no property gained then that act does not categorize in fraud documentary too. Motivation and intention of act does not impact on kind of crime realization. E-commerce law states in Article 67: (perpetrator is punishable if committed as a result of using fraudulent means, personal or automated processing systems deceived in order to gain a person’s property. For this reason, the mere intention to resort to dishonest means and education funds, property or privileges, is not sufficient to fulfill the offense.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.002

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicCybercrime and Law Enforcement StudiesFrench-language works237,207