MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2595411904

Phishing Attacks and Perceptions of Service Quality: A Content Analysis of Internet Banking in Turkey

2007· article· en· W2595411904 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Murat Hakan Atintas, Necmi Gürsakal

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpam and Phishing Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhishingThe InternetContext (archaeology)Dimension (graph theory)Quality (philosophy)Internet privacyService (business)Service qualityBusinessIdentity theftPerceptionComputer scienceContent analysisComputer securityWorld Wide WebMarketing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Internet banking, which is a trust-based system, phishing attacks and Internet fraud can affect the customers’ view of the service quality provided by the banks. Theft of the customers’ personal identity information can cause the customers to lose their confidence in the system and their banks. Within this context, content analysis was used to develop an examination of the complaints of 200 bank customers. The present analysis only contains the customers who had experienced money transfer problems as a result of Internet fraud. As a result of the study, the deficiencies in the service quality were classified into 41 basic groups, which were then arranged into and 6 dimensions. The importance of each dimension, as measured by the frequency of their occurrence, was then determined. The results obtained provide some suggestions for the banks on how to approach customers who have experienced such problems, and the things they should they provide in terms of customer care services.

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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations16
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Internet Banking and CommerceSame topicSpam and Phishing DetectionFrench-language works237,207