MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409154300 · doi:10.1109/thms.2025.3552231

Cybersecurity Challenge Analysis of Work-From-Anywhere (WFA) and Recommendations Guided by a User Study

2025· article· en· W4409154300 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohammed Mahyoub, Ashraf Matrawy, Kamal Isleem, Olakunle Ibitoye

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInformation and Cyber Security
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWork (physics)Computer scienceComputer securityEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many organizations were forced to quickly transition to the work-from-anywhere (WFA) model as a necessity to continue with their operations and remain in business despite the restrictions imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Many decisions were made in a rush, and cybersecurity decency tools were not in place to support this transition. In this article, we first attempt to uncover some challenges and implications related to the cybersecurity of the WFA model. Second, we conducted an online user study to investigate the readiness and cybersecurity awareness of employers and their employees who shifted to work remotely from anywhere. The user study questionnaire addressed different resilience perspectives of individuals and organizations. The collected data includes 45 responses from remotely working employees of different organizational types: Universities, government, private, and nonprofit organizations. Despite the importance of security training and guidelines, it was surprising that many participants had not received them. A robust communication strategy is necessary to ensure that employees are informed and updated on security incidents that the organization encounters. In addition, there is an increased need to pay attention to the security-related attributes of employees, such as their behavior, awareness, and compliance. Finally, we outlined best practice recommendations and mitigation tips guided by the study results to help individuals and organizations resist cybercrime and fraud and mitigate WFA-related cybersecurity risks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Human-Machine SystemsSame topicInformation and Cyber SecurityFrench-language works237,207