Motivation and Demotivation of Hackers in Selecting a Hacking Task
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To build a solid foundation on which to understand and combat threats to information systems, researchers need to look past technical security issues and explore why hackers do what they do. Based on General Deterrence Theory and the Theory of Reasoned Action, a structural model is proposed and validated that examines attraction and detraction factors towards a hack. From a motivational perspective, individual characteristics (mastery and curiosity), peer influence and the nature of the task itself are shown to impact hacker’s attitudes. Specifically, we uncover an interesting non-linear relationship between hacking task complexity and a hacker’s attitude towards a hack. From a deterrence perspective, while hackers consider the likelihood of being caught, the severity of punishment/sanctions does not have a significant effect on hackers’ intention to engage in a hacking task. When we better understand what motivates and demotivates these highly skilled users, we gain insights to avoid becoming targets.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it