MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395666704 · doi:10.5267/j.msl.2024.3.005

Influential factors of cybersecurity investment: A quantitative SEM analysis

2024· article· en· W4395666704 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Phasikha Rattanapong, Smitti Darakorn Na Ayuthaya

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science Letters · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInformation and Cyber Security
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer securityInvestment (military)Computer scienceBusinessSample (material)Process managementPoliticsPolitical scienceLawChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the dynamic landscape of digital enterprises, cybersecurity has emerged as a critical determinant of organizational effectiveness. This study delves into the intricate realm of cybersecurity investment within ASEAN organizations, exploring the key facets that drive decision-making in this domain. Using a quantitative approach through structural equation modeling (SEM), we conducted an in-depth analysis based on a sample of 419 enterprises meeting cybersecurity criteria. Our findings reveal that cybersecurity strategy, financial considerations, and institutional and regulatory conditions are the primary factors influencing cybersecurity investments in the ASEAN region. In particular, financial resources emerged as the most critical determinant, underscoring the importance of adequate funding to address evolving cyber threats. Furthermore, our study highlights the crucial role of institutional and regulatory frameworks in shaping investment behavior, indicating a heightened awareness among firms regarding compliance with legal requirements. By unpacking these dynamics, our research provides deep insights into the intricate interplay of factors shaping cybersecurity investments in ASEAN organizations. This study contributes to the discourse by emphasizing the imperative nature of understanding the impact of risk aversion, organizational structures, and long-term practices on cybersecurity resilience. The implications of our findings extend to policy making, innovation, and future research directions in the cybersecurity domain, offering valuable insights to improve cybersecurity preparedness and resilience against evolving cyber threats.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.523

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement Science LettersSame topicInformation and Cyber SecurityFrench-language works237,207