MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4360829105 · doi:10.35502/jcswb.284

Agent bankers and customer victimization in Ado City, Nigeria

2023· article· en· W4360829105 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Oluwaseun Titi Adeosun

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Community Safety and Well-Being · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarelessnessSnowball samplingLaw enforcementNonprobability samplingBusinessIdentity theftExploratory researchCriminologyPublic relationsLawSociologyPsychologyPolitical scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Criminal victimization against agent bankers and their customers has recently been on the increase, and the multiplier effect is a major socio-economic problem that could cause a downturn in the economy. This study examines the exposure of agent bankers and their customers to criminal victimization in Ado city, Nigeria. Specifically, the study explores the forms of criminal victimization against agent bankers and their customers, examines the consequences of criminal victimization, looks into the cases of agent bankers and customer victimization, and determines the preventive measures adopted by agent bankers and their customers against victimization. Lifestyle-routine activity theory was deployed as the conceptual framework. An exploratory research design and snowball and purposive sampling with key informant and in-depth interviews were used to interview 12 victimized and non-victimized agent bankers and their customers. Interviews were conducted in Fayose market, King market, Bisi market, and Irona market. Findings reveal that agents’ bankers and their customers were being targeted by criminals who use non-violent tactics. The eagerness of the agent bankers to transact business brings a measure of carelessness to their business dealings. This carelessness and lack of security measures exposes them to motivated offenders. Victimization through fake alert, fraudulent transfer, withdrawal under false pretense, fraudulent alteration, intentional criminal patronage, fake identity, and urgent withdrawal under duress represent the themes found. It is imperative for agent bankers and their customers to set up security measures that could protect them against being victimized.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.549
Threshold uncertainty score0.387

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Community Safety and Well-BeingSame topicCybercrime and Law Enforcement StudiesFrench-language works237,207