MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3137516589 · doi:10.5267/j.ac.2021.2.024

The role of artificial intelligence on limiting Jordanian commercial banks cybercrimes

2021· article· en· W3137516589 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rafat Salameh Salameh, Khalid Munther Lutfi

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCybercrimeLimitingArtificial neural networkSample (material)Genetic algorithmTest (biology)Artificial intelligenceAuditComputer scienceStatisticsMachine learningEngineeringThe InternetMathematicsBusinessAccounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to investigate the role of applying artificial intelligence in limiting cybercrime in the 14 Jordanian commercial banks listed in the Amman Financial Market, from the point of view of internal auditors and IT. For this purpose, a questionnaire was designed and distributed to the study sample of (849). The number of respondents to the questionnaire reached (230). The data of the questionnaire were analyzed, and their hypotheses were tested using the statistical program (SPSS) through tests of the arithmetic mean, standard deviation, linear, multiple regression, and the T-test for two independent samples. The study found a statistically significant effect for artificial intelligence with its dimensions (Expert Systems, Artificial Neural Network, Genetic Algorithm, Fuzzy logic) in limiting cybercrime in Jordanian commercial banks. It was also found that there were statistically significant differences in both genetic algorithm and cybercrime attributable to the job variable in favor of IT department employees.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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