MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2809566412

IMPACT OF CYBERATTACKS ON FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

2018· article· en· W2809566412 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Neelofer Tariq

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlockchain Technology Applications and Security
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessAuditFinancial servicesComputer securityFinanceFinTechFinancial securityData breachAccountingComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Use of modern technology has geared up the business activities. Cyber technology has taken the organizations above the heights of profits. Specially, it has given a great favor to the financial institutions by providing data storage, digital money, networking and many other online services. The fact, cannot be hindered in any way that where technology facilitates intensively, can also be severely disastrous for financial institutions. Cybercrimes as a technology disease are spreading very speedily in present era. Nothing is secure now and financial institutions are under a great threat. Therefore, this study has undertaken to explore impact of cyberattacks on financial institutions. The study has witnessed that there may be the lesser cases of cyberattacks on financial institutions but their impact is severe in terms of direct and indirect loss. It has also been witnessed that cyberattacks are growing rapidly as compare to few years back. In this alarming situation, organizations, especially financial institutes must pay attention to the security. Some of the preventive measures can be tightening internal security, cybersecurity assessment, cybersecurity training and cybersecurity audit.

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)0.012
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations33
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Internet Banking and CommerceSame topicBlockchain Technology Applications and SecurityFrench-language works237,207