MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320916962 · doi:10.18280/ijsdp.180127

Cybersecurity Awareness: Investigating Students’ Susceptibility to Phishing Attacks for Sustainable Safe Email Usage in Academic Environment (A Case Study of a Nigerian Leading University)

2023· article· en· W4320916962 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kennedy Okokpujie, Chinyere G. Kennedy, Kamsiyochukwu Nnodu, Etinose Noma-Osaghae

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpam and Phishing Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCovenant University Centre for Research, Innovation and DiscoveryCovenant University
KeywordsPhishingInternet privacyInformation and Communications TechnologyElectronic mailComputer securityWork (physics)Computer scienceWorld Wide WebThe InternetEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the advancement in information communication technology (ICT), cyber-attacks have become a global phenomenon, with email phishing at the topmost. Academic institutions' ICT infrastructures are one of many targets, thus the need to facilitate cybersecurity awareness among students. This research is aimed at investigating students’ susceptibility to phishing attacks for sustainable safe electronic mail (email) usage in the academic environment. Two email phishing tests were carried out during this research work to discover how students reacted to phish emails and understand how students respond to phish emails where all group members are recipients. Finally, questionnaires are administered to participants after completing the exercise to ascertain the students' awareness of phishing attacks based on received emails. The results show that 70.6% of college students surveyed are susceptible to this form of attack due to unawareness. In conclusion, recommendations are outlined on securing the academic community and ICT infrastructures to achieve a sustainable and Safe email usage environment.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.632
Threshold uncertainty score0.614

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and PlanningSame topicSpam and Phishing DetectionFrench-language works237,207