The Impact of Call Spoofing on Trust and Communication: A User Perception Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores the complex field of phone spoofing in the context of India's digital revolution, examining how people react to and perceive dishonest communication techniques.The study examines the interconnected dynamics of Knowledge of Call Spoofing, Perceived Threat, and Trust in Phone Communication, with a focus on the Indian context, where traditional values collide with rapid technological advancements.This study employs a mixed-methods approach, integrating both qualitative and quantitative data.Quantitative data is gathered through a structured survey questionnaire distributed to a demographically diverse sample, and qualitative insights are obtained through in-depth interviews and focus groups.The results show a strong and positive correlation between call spoofing knowledge and phone communication trust, indicating that knowledgeable users are more likely to have confidence in their phone interactions.These views are further shaped by demographic subtleties, which include differences in gender, age, education, and occupation.The results offer a basis for developing proactive and culturally aware approaches to boost user confidence, guaranteeing a safe and robust digital communication environment catered to the various demands of the enormous Indian populace.In addition to that, this research has real-world consequences for educators, technology companies, and governments who are involved in determining India's digital future.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".