Evaluating the influence of security considerations on information dissemination via social networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the factors that influence the sharing of information on social media platforms and examines the effects of perceived security, perceived privacy, and user awareness on users' trust in social media platforms, as well as the moderating effects of age, gender, educational attainment, and internet proficiency on information sharing. The study collected data from 837 social media users in Jordan and analyzed them using structural equation modeling (SEM), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and machine learning (ML) methods. The findings of the study indicate that perceived security, perceived privacy, and user awareness all have a significant impact on users' trust in social media platforms. Trust, in turn, has a significant impact on the amount of information shared on these platforms. Also, the findings of this study provide valuable insights into the dynamics of information sharing on social networks. This knowledge will be of interest to managers, policymakers, and developers of social media platforms. In addition, the findings of the study also have implications for the privacy and security of social media users. For example, social media users can be more careful about the information they share on social media platforms, and they can take steps to protect their privacy.
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 | 0.011 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".