An effective cybersecurity training model to support an organizational awareness program: The Cybersecurity Awareness Training Model (CATRAM). A case study in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditional cybersecurity, security or information security awareness programs have become ineffective to change people’s behavior in recognizing, failing to block or reporting cyberthreats within their organizational environment. As a result, human errors and actions continue to demonstrate that we are the weakest links in cybersecurity. This article studies the most recent cybersecurity awareness programs and its attributes. Furthermore, the authors compiled recent awareness methodologies, frameworks and approaches. The authors introduce a suggested awareness training model to address existing deficiencies in awareness training. The Cybersecurity Awareness TRAining Model (CATRAM) has been designed to deliver training to different organizational audiences, each of these groups with specific content and separate objectives. The authors concluded their study by addressing the need of future research to target new approaches to keep cybersecurity awareness focused on the everchanging cyberthreat landscape. Copyright © 2019, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".