MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3174526591 · doi:10.69554/ogjs4246

Data breach in the travel sector and strategies for risk mitigation

2020· article· en· W3174526591 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

VenueJournal of data protection & privacy. · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInformation and Cyber Security
Canadian institutionsPrivacy Analytics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessRisk managementData breachRisk analysis (engineering)Environmental resource managementEnvironmental planningComputer securityComputer scienceGeographyEnvironmental scienceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The airline industry relies heavily on personal data for transactions. This paper discusses the British Airways data breach of 2018, how the attack unfolded and problems that led to the attack. It provides examples of other airline-breach incidents through the years, how they were handled, and shows different types of risks airlines face today that should be addressed. Personal data has become increasingly attractive to hackers, and this paper highlights privacy law compliance, the importance of protecting and securing data in the industry including vulnerabilities and levels of acceptable risk in third-party transactions. It reviews various publications and resources about the cyberattack and describes risk mitigation strategies that airlines should implement that would significantly reduce cyber risks. As threat actors adapt with methods of cyberattacks, proper steps should be taken to mitigate these risks.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.412

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 communication0.0000.006
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.185 · 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