On-Farm Data Security: Practical Recommendations for Securing Farm Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The growth in the use of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) and Artificial intelligence (AI) has improved the productivity and efficiency of modern agriculture, which is commonly referred to as precision farming. Precision farming solutions are dependent on collecting a large amount of data from farms. Despite the many advantages of precision farming, security threats are a major challenge that is continuously on the rise and can harm various stakeholders in the agricultural system. These security issues may result in security breaches that could lead to unauthorized access to farmers' confidential data, identity theft, reputation loss, financial loss, or disruption to the food supply chain. Security breaches can occur because of an intentional or unintentional actions or incidents. Research suggests that humans play a key role in causing security breaches due to errors or system vulnerabilities. Farming is no different from other sectors. There is a growing need to protect data and IT assets on farms by raising awareness, promoting security best practices and standards, and embedding security practices into the systems. This paper provides recommendations for farmers on how they can mitigate potential security threats in precision farming. These recommendations are categorized into human-centric solutions, technology-based solutions, and physical aspect solutions. The paper also provides recommendations for Agriculture Technology Providers (ATPs) on best practices that can mitigate security 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.
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 | 0.021 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.028 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.019 |
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".