MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980852006 · doi:10.1163/17087384-12340034

An Assessment of the Impact of Municipal Laws on the Policing of Cybercrimes in Nigeria

2018· article· en· W2980852006 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rasul Oriyomi Olukolu

Bibliographic record

VenueAfrican Journal of Legal Studies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCybercrimeThe InternetBusinessConfidentialityInternet privacyAction (physics)LawComputer securityPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Internet crime can be defined as unlawful acts using the computer as either a tool or a target or both. Internet networks are used positively to conduct businesses, manage industrial and governmental activities, engage in personal communications, and conduct research. Also, certain confidential information is stored or passed through the medium of the internet. Credit cards containing information of users are used as the major means of buying and selling on the internet. Information infrastructure has become a critical part of the backbone of global economies; therefore, it is imperative that the general public be able to rely on the availability of such informational services with confidence that their communications and data are safe from unauthorized access or modification. It then becomes important for these and other information to be more secured. However, the speed of the internet, its affordability, and its elimination of distance make the internet the hotbed of crimes globally. Cybercrime growth has skyrocketed in recent times, especially in Nigeria; hence, the need for immediate action by law makers to stem the tide. This research, therefore, examines the adequacy or otherwise of the Nigerian legal framework in checking crimes being perpetrated using the internet as a platform with a view to making useful suggestions.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.567
Threshold uncertainty score0.592

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.351 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAfrican Journal of Legal StudiesSame topicCybercrime and Law Enforcement StudiesFrench-language works237,207