Application of Geospatial Data in Cyber security
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Geospatial data is often perceived as only being related to maps, compasses and locations. However, the application areas of geospatial data are far wider and even extend to the field of cybersecurity. Not only is there an ability to show points of interest and emerging network traffic conditions, geospatial data also has the ability to model cyber crime growth patterns and indicate affected areas as well as the emergence of certain type of cyber threats. Geospatial data can feed into intelligence systems, help with analysis, information sharing, and help create situational awareness. This is particularly useful in the area of cyber security. Geospatial data is very powerful and can help to prioritise cyber threats and identify critical areas of concern. Previously, geospatial data was primarily used by militaries, intelligence agencies, weather services or traffic control. Currently, the application of geospatial data has multiplied, and it spans many more industries and sectors. So too for cyber security, geospatial data has a wide number of uses. It may be difficult to find patterns or trends in large data sets. However, the graphic capabilities of geo mapping help present data in more digestible manner. This may help analysts identify emerging issues, threats and target areas. In this paper, the usefulness of geospatial data for cyber security is explored. The paper will cover a framework of the key application areas that geospatial data can serve in the field of cyber security. The ten application areas covered in the paper are: tracking, data analysis, visualisation, situational awareness, cyber intelligence, collaboration, improved response to cyber threats, decision-making, cyber threat prioritisation and protect cyber infrastructure It is aimed that through the paper, the application areas of geospatial data can be more widely adopted.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".