MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2625514166 · doi:10.1145/3084381.3084384

Effects of Organization Insiders' Self-Control and Relevant Knowledge on Participation in Information Systems Security Deviant Behavior

2017· article· en· W2625514166 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Princely Ifinedo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInformation and Cyber Security
Canadian institutionsCape Breton University
FundersCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorCape Breton University
KeywordsControl (management)Information securityKey (lock)Knowledge managementThe InternetInternet privacyComputer sciencePsychologyComputer securityWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Disastrous consequences tend to befall organizations whose employees participate in information systems security deviant behavior (ISSDB) (e.g., connecting computers to the Internet through an insecure wireless network and opening emails from unverified senders). Although organizations recognize that ISSDB poses a serious problem, understanding what motivates its occurrence continues to be a key concern. While studies on information technology (IT) misuse abounds, research specifically focusing on the drivers of ISSDB remains scant in the literature. Using self-control theory, augmented with knowledge of relevant factors, this study examined the effects of employees' self-control, knowledge of computers/IT, and information systems (IS) security threats and risks on participation in ISSDB. A research model, including the aforementioned factors, was proposed and tested using the partial least squares technique. Data was collected from a survey of Canadian professionals. The results show that low self-control and lower levels of knowledge of computers/IT are related to employees' involvement in ISSDB. The data did not provide a meaningful relationship between employees' knowledge of IS security threats/risks and desire to participate in ISSDB.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.813
Threshold uncertainty score0.343

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInformation and Cyber SecurityFrench-language works237,207