Countering Cybercrime Risks in Financial Institutions: Forecasting Information Trends
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article aims to forecast the information trends related to the most popular cyberattacks, seen as the cyber-crimes’ consequences reflecting on the Internet. The study database was formed based on online users’ search engine requests regarding the terms “Cyberattacks on the computer systems of a financial institution”, “Cyberattacks on the network infrastructure of a financial institution”, and “Cyberattacks on the cloud infra-structure of a financial institution”, obtained with Google Trends for the period from 16 April 2017 to 4 October 2022. The authors examined the data using the Z-score, the QS test, and the method of differences of average levels. The data were found to be non-stationary with outliers and a seasonal component, so exponential smoothing was applied to reduce fluctuations and clarify the trends. As a result, the authors built additive and multiplicative cyclical and trend-cyclical models with linear, exponential, and damped trends. According to the models’ quality evaluation, the best results were shown by the trend-cyclic additive models with an exponential trend for predicting cyberattacks on computer systems and the cloud infrastructure and a trend-cyclic additive model with a damped tendency for predicting cyberattacks on the network infrastructure. The obtained results indicate that the U.S. can expect cybercrimes in the country’s financial system in the short and medium term and develop appropriate countermeasures of a financial institution to reduce potential financial losses.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".