MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4230313894 · doi:10.31228/osf.io/tsdfb

Cybersecurity for Elections: A Commonwealth Guide on Best Practice

2020· preprint· en· W4230313894 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ian Brown, Christopher T. Marsden, James Lee, Michael Veale

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Development Research CentreGovernment of the United KingdomUniversity of OxfordForeign and Commonwealth OfficeYale University
KeywordsCornerstoneCompromiseVotingDemocracyComputer securityPolitical scienceInternet privacyPublic relationsElectronic votingSocial mediaComputer scienceLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This guide explains how cybersecurity issues can compromise traditional aspects of elections, such as maintaining voter lists, verifying voters, counting and casting votes and announcing results. It also describes how cybersecurity interacts with the broader electoral environment and new ways elections are being carried out, such as campaigns and data management by candidates and parties, online campaigns, social media, false or divisive information, and e-voting. Unless carefully managed, all these cybersecurity issues can present a critical threat to public confidence in election outcomes – which are the cornerstone of democracy.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.672
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCybercrime and Law Enforcement StudiesFrench-language works237,207