MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899105209 · doi:10.1109/pst.2018.8514190

Exploring User Behavior and Cybersecurity Knowledge - An experimental study in Online Shopping

2018· article· en· W2899105209 on OpenAlexaff
Ghada El Haddad, Amin Shahab, Esma Aı̈meur

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCybercrimeComputer scienceCredit cardProfiling (computer programming)Internet privacyPerceptionContext (archaeology)Set (abstract data type)Computer securityThe InternetWorld Wide WebPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study explores the relationship between cybersecurity knowledge, online behavior, and risk perception. To simulate an online shopping experience, we invited participants to access our newly designed website and answer a set of questions to evaluate their level of cybersecurity knowledge. The experiment identifies multiple subsequent stages that enhance different features of the social online shopping literature by offering different tasks. The online activities provided on our website play the role of essential vital enablers to interact with the user such as giving the buyer the chance to earn more credits in exchange for private information, saving the virtual credit card information and selecting a specific shopping scenario. Our outcomes highlight the significance of engaging individuals with cybersecurity and provide an analysis of consumer profiling and practice in an online shopping context. Moreover, our findings lead to two sets of actions: reducing the perceived risk of cybercrime in online activities by increasing the level of knowledge in cybersecurity and evolving user behavior when spotting a high level of privacy concern.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.205
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPrivacy, Security, and Data ProtectionFrench-language works237,207