“The pull to do nothing would be strong”: limitations & opportunities in reporting insider threats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Though a reporting mechanism, in which employees report suspicious and/or potentially malicious coworker behavior, is thought to be important to tackling insider risk, the literature on the subject is sparse and unconvincing. Empirical evidence of the actual use and utility of this type of detection mechanism is slim. Our article explores the propensity of employees to report a coworker’s concerning behavior suspected to be related to insider activity that would negatively impact an organization. This study uses an inductive approach and qualitative analysis of original interview data collected from 16 financial services organizations to explore attitudes and opinions about reporting a coworker’s concerning behavior, providing lessons on countering insider threats useful across industries and national security domains. The results show that there is confusion, uncertainty, and cognitive dissonance surrounding institutional reporting mechanisms, with some participants expressing both affirmative and negative opinions about their personal likelihood of reporting. Employees do want to report concerning coworker behavior that suggests an insider threat, but not at their own expense. These results are consistent with those from other studies and sectors. Our study will assist organizations in refining their assumptions around workforce attitudes regarding the reporting of coworkers.
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 | 0.306 | 0.449 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".