A Comparative Assessment of Human Factors in Cybersecurity: Implications for Cyber Governance
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper provides an extensive overview of cybersecurity awareness in the young, educated, and technology-savvy population of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), compared to the United States of America (USA) for advancing the scholarship and practice of global cyber governance. We conducted comparative empirical studies to identify differences in specific human factors that affect cybersecurity behaviour in the UAE and the USA. In addition, we employed several control variables to observe reliable results. We used Hofstede’s theoretical framework on culture to advance our investigation. The results show that the targeted population in the UAE exhibits contrasting interpretations of cybersecurity awareness of critical human factors as compared to their counterparts from the USA. We identify possible explanations for this relatively different behaviour in the UAE population. Our key contributions are to provide valuable information for cybersecurity policymakers in the UAE and Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) region to further enhance cyber safety, governance, awareness, and trust among citizens.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it