MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2760426789 · doi:10.1177/0002764217734262

Shuffle Up and Deal: Use of a Capture–Recapture Method to Estimate the Size of Stolen Data Markets

2017· article· en· W2760426789 on OpenAlexaff
Mitch Macdonald, Richard Frank

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Behavioral Scientist · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCrime, Illicit Activities, and Governance
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScope (computer science)Population sizeMark and recapturePopulationBusinessComputer securityInternet privacyComputer scienceActuarial scienceData scienceSociologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Often overlooked in the measurement of crime is the underlying size of offender populations. This holds true for online property crimes involving the sale, purchase, and use of stolen financial data. Though available data suggests that online frauds are steadily increasing, there are currently no estimates of the scope of this offender population. The current study addresses this issue by using capture–recapture methods to estimate the size of the population participating in stolen data markets over a calendar year. Data analysis involved samples collected from three websites that facilitate financial crimes and frauds. Findings suggest that markets are much larger in size than what can otherwise be observed, are heterogeneous, and that buyers outnumber vendors.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.650
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.360 · 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.

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Behavioral ScientistSame topicCrime, Illicit Activities, and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207