Bibliographic record
Abstract
Older adults are a growing group of Internet users, but they are also among the most vulnerable for attack.We examine how older adults perceive risks involved in email and Facebook and compare their perceptions to those of younger adults.We interviewed sixteen younger adults and fifteen older adults and found that older adults had roughly the same perceptions of email risks, however notably different perceptions of Facebook risks than the younger users.Further, older adults' understanding of available security and privacy tools in both email and Facebook was more limited than that of younger adults.We also determined that family and the media are the most prevalent sources of information regarding computer security for participants in both age groups.This study provides recommendations on communication of Internet security and outlines elements of email and Facebook that need further clarification for older users, such as Facebook's privacy settings.I would like to thank my supervisor, Sonia, without whom this project never could have happened.Her unending patience, generosity, open-mindedness, teaching, resources, cat stories, thoughtfulness, nurturance, and painstaking editing of awkward, and run on sentences, and excessive commas, made this thesis, what it is, today.My wife deserves more thanks than I will ever be able to give.She acted as a mentor, an editor, and as a sounding board for all of my crazy ideas.She patiently listened to and empathized with my struggles, and supported and enabled me as I surpassed them during the whole process.Thank you.It is finally the end of the "ssh"!"..sorry!!" in the evenings now, for which I'm sure we are both grateful.I benefited greatly from academic support from my co-supervisor Andrew, who regularly took time out of his busy schedule to go over project design and planning, results analysis and draft editing with me.His meaningful insights regarding thesis organization, writing, and defense also influenced this project greatly.Thanks also go to my participants whose willingness to share their understanding, strategies, and experiences made this thesis not only possible, but fascinating and fruitful.Extra thanks go to my pilot participants whose
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".