MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Role and Impact of Digital Forensics in Cyber Crime Investigations

2019· article· en· W2999986322 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueINROADS- An International Journal of Jaipur National University · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital and Cyber Forensics
Canadian institutionsInstitute on Governance
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDigital forensicsCyber crimeDigital evidenceComputer forensicsComputer securityInternet privacyCriminologyComputer sciencePsychologyWorld Wide WebThe Internet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cybercrime is a growing problem, but the ability of law enforcement agencies to investigate and successfully prosecute criminals for these crimes is unclear. While law enforcement agencies have been conducting these investigations for many years, the previously published needs assessments all indicated that there is lack the training, tools or staff to effectively conduct investigations with the volume or complexity included in many of these cases. This study discussed on Cybercrime and Global Economic Growth, Reasons for Conducting a Digital Forensic Investigation, Various Branches of Digital Forensics in details, Potential Source of Digital Evidence, standard operating procedure for digital evidence, Legal Aspects and What the Future Holds in the field of digital forensics.

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.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.329
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.004
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.228 · 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