MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285792826 · doi:10.1108/jfc-06-2022-0124

Metaverse: welcome to the new fraud marketplace

2022· article· en· W4285792826 on OpenAlexaff
Nadia Smaïli, Audrey de Rancourt-Raymond

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Financial Crime · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVirtual Reality Applications and Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetaverseAuditPublic relationsComputer scienceBusinessAccountingPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this study is to examine the risks of the metaverse ecosystem. This study provides an overview of the metaverse and its evolution and discusses the various fraud risks it poses for organizations (including boards of directors, forensic accountants, auditors and accountants). Given the advantages of the metaverse and the growing interest it is attracting from organizations, this paper sheds light on the importance of mitigating its risks. Design/methodology/approach Based on a systematic review of the literature on the metaverse and analysis of the fraud triangle, this study examines the different fraud risks it poses. More specifically, this study analyzes 21 articles on the metaverse published between 2021 and 2022 and attempts to answer the following research questions: What are the risks inherent in the metaverse? What are the fraud risks associated with it? What are the opportunities and pressures it brings? What is the rationalization underlying its use? This study conducts the analysis on two levels, that of the individual (user) and that of the organization. This paper summarizes the findings of publications on the metaverse in 2021 and 2022 to discover its various definitions and the opportunities and risks it represents. Findings This paper offers an insightful discussion of the advantages and risks the metaverse can bring. Because this analysis shows that any organization could be vulnerable to metaverse risks, this study provides organizations with strategies to deter, detect and prevent fraud and reputational risks. Regulatory bodies, financial authorities, board of directors and fraud investigators should all consider these risks before investing in the metaverse. Originality/value This paper adds new insights to the scarce research on the metaverse and cybersecurity by exploring the opportunities and risks it presents. It has several implications for organizations, boards of directors, management and regulatory authorities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.095
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.163

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.095
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.006
Science and technology studies0.0050.010
Scholarly communication0.0370.051
Open science0.0030.016
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.003

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations68
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Financial CrimeSame topicVirtual Reality Applications and ImpactsFrench-language works237,207