MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405813335 · doi:10.5267/j.uscm.2024.12.005

Factors affecting cybersecurity awareness: A qualitative study in Saudi Arabia

2024· article· en· W4405813335 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tariq Saleh, Raed Kareem Kanaan, Rania Alzubaidi, Ghassan Kanaan

Bibliographic record

VenueUncertain Supply Chain Management · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInformation and Cyber Security
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer securityQualitative researchBusinessInternet privacyComputer scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this research was to gain a deeper comprehension of how individuals perceive and respond to cybersecurity and how various internal and external factors influence these behaviors and attitudes. Conducted at ABC organization in Saudi Arabia, the study employed the qualitative methodology. Two online focus groups were employed featuring open-ended questions. The data were subsequently analyzed thematically using inductive and deductive coding techniques. Several theories were used as theoretical lenses to analyze the data. After the collected data had been analyzed, three main themes emerged: (a) perceived safeguards and threats, (b) personal and professional experience in information security, and (c) necessity of education and raising awareness. Additionally, two sub-themes were revealed: (a) costs and benefits and (b) necessity of safeguard measures and attaining trust. The study’s identified themes and sub-themes offer a thorough comprehension of the demographic, social, cultural, and internalized factors influencing cybersecurity-related behavior. The identified themes could potentially be applicable to other settings. Future qualitative research could further explore the transferability of these findings by conducting similar studies in different organizational, cultural, and linguistic contexts. It is also recommended for future quantitative research to delve deeper than surface-level data and consider underlying meaning, factors, connections, or relationships that may skew the results. It is crucial to delve into hidden meanings, not just accept data at face value.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.193
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.288 · 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.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUncertain Supply Chain ManagementSame topicInformation and Cyber SecurityFrench-language works237,207