Assessing the Effectiveness of Cyber Domain Controls When Conducting Cybersecurity Audits: Insights from Higher Education Institutions in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study validates a comprehensive cybersecurity audit model through empirical analysis in three higher education institutions in Canada. The research aims to enhance cybersecurity resilience by assessing the effectiveness of cybersecurity controls across diverse educational environments. Given the increasing frequency and sophistication of cyberattacks targeting educational institutions, this research is essential to ensure the protection of sensitive academic and personal data. Data were collected through detailed audits involving system vulnerabilities, compliance with security policies, and incident response management at each institution. The findings underscore the importance of tailored cybersecurity strategies and continuous auditing to mitigate cyber risks in the Canadian higher education sector. This study contributes to the field by validating a versatile audit tool that can be adapted to various institutional contexts, promoting enhanced cybersecurity practices and evaluating the effectiveness of cybersecurity safeguards across the higher education sector in Canada. The results of the audit model validations provide the cybersecurity maturity rating of each institution. Further research is recommended to refine the model and explore its application in other industries and sectors.
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 | 0.009 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".