MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407420309 · doi:10.1111/1911-3838.12389

Assure or Insure Cyber Risk? Nonprofessional Investors' Willingness to Invest<sup>*</sup>

2025· article· en· W4407420309 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kevin Gauch, Reiner Quick

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting Perspectives · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInsurance and Financial Risk Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessActuarial scienceFinanceRisk analysis (engineering)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Organizations face severe cyber risks, which may lead companies to contract related insurance or to demand cybersecurity assurance services to signal risk management. This paper experimentally investigates how cybersecurity assurance and insurance against cyber risks impact nonprofessional investors. We conducted an experiment with a 2 × 2 between‐subjects design with 100 UK nonprofessional investors and manipulated the assurance provision and insurance purchase to analyze their impact on willingness to invest. Our results suggest that cybersecurity assurance and cyber risk insurance positively affect willingness to invest. The results confirm the usefulness of measures to handle cyber risks and are of interest to managers, auditors, regulators, and academics.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.250
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAccounting PerspectivesSame topicInsurance and Financial Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207