MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2967756907 · doi:10.1080/23800992.2019.1649122

Manipulation through Online Sexual Behavior: Exemplifying the Importance of Human Factor in Intelligence and Counterintelligence in the Big Data Era

2019· article· en· W2967756907 on OpenAlexaff
Matthieu J. Guitton

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Intelligence Security and Public Affairs · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInformation and Cyber Security
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCounterintelligenceCyberspacePerspective (graphical)The InternetPopulationComputer securityInternet privacyComputer scienceOnline and offlineData sciencePsychologyArtificial intelligenceWorld Wide WebSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As we spend more and more time online, Internet-based virtual spaces are becoming a central component of our daily life and activities. This shift of human activities from offline to online spaces has major impacts for national security. Consequently, cyberspace became a new field of operation for intelligence and counter-intelligence services worldwide. While massive efforts are made to further strategies based on surveys and analyses of large datasets, cybersecurity protocols can be impacted tremendously by individual behaviors. This is particularly the case of online sexual behavior, which can be easily manipulated by malevolent agents. This paper will describe some of the general characteristics of sexual cyberbehaviors. We will then identify some of the main threats related to sexual cyberbehavior (specifically risks of blackmailing, risks associated with the use of online dating sites, and risks associated with the consumption of online pornography), as well as the main targets in terms of population from an intelligence/counter-intelligence perspective. Finally, we will propose some possible counter-measures, that could be implemented to reduce the security risks related to online sexual behavior.

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)0.002
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.394
Threshold uncertainty score0.800

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of Intelligence Security and Public AffairsSame topicInformation and Cyber SecurityFrench-language works237,207