MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2994091983 · doi:10.7202/1065856ar

Cryptomarchés et carding : impact sur l’offre et la demande

2019· article· fr· W2994091983 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Mathieu Guillot, David Décary-Hêtu

Bibliographic record

VenueCriminologie · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicCybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans le présent article, il est question de décrire les activités marchandes des cardeurs sur les cryptomarchés au moyen d’un échantillon de 17 619 annonces de produits ou de services relatifs aucardingainsi que d’un second échantillon recensant les activités de 4 294 vendeurs. Notre démarche s’attache plus précisément à constater si l’avènement des cryptomarchés, comme lieu de convergence pour les cybercriminels, a eu un impact sur l’offre et la demande de tels produits et services. Pour mener à bien cet objectif, une typologie des différents produits et services est réalisée. Dans un premier temps, des analyses descriptives, mettant en lumière les proportions des différents types ainsi que la distribution des prix affichés par les annonces, permettent d’offrir un regard sur l’impact des technologies d’anonymat sur l’offre de produits et services. Dans un second temps, des analyses descriptives des transactions effectuées par les vendeurs sont réalisées pour examiner leur impact sur la demande de produits et services. Les principaux résultats indiquent que les cryptomarchés offrent tout le nécessaire pour commettre les trois étapes du script criminel ducarding. De plus, il est aussi montré que, comme dans le cas des vendeurs de drogue en ligne, le système d’évaluation formel a permis de transcender et d’améliorer les processus générateurs de confiance.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designlow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.002

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 head0.284
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.125 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designObservational · Other design
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCriminologieSame topicCybercrime and Law Enforcement StudiesFrench-language works237,207