MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410309964 · doi:10.18280/ijsse.150320

Evaluating Students’ Vulnerability and Awareness to Phishing Attacks in Educational Institutions

2025· article· en· W4410309964 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kennedy Okokpujie, Michael Ayomide Ariyo, Funmilayo S. Moninuola, Matthew B. Akanle, Imhade P. Okokpujie

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Safety and Security Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpam and Phishing Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCovenant University Centre for Research, Innovation and DiscoveryCovenant University
KeywordsVulnerability (computing)PhishingComputer securityMedical emergencyOccupational safety and healthInjury preventionSuicide preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsPoison controlPsychologyInternet privacyComputer scienceMedicineThe InternetWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rapid growth of the internet has made students increasingly susceptible to phishing attacks, posing risks such as identity theft, financial fraud, and other cybercrimes.Reports indicate that these phishing attacks increasingly target universities and students in higher education institutions (a case study of final engineering students).The objective of this study is to assess the susceptibility and knowledge of students towards phishing attacks through the configuration and analysis of a phishing framework.The methodology encompassed the establishment of a phishing campaign specifically designed to target the academic setting of the students, followed by an assessment of their reactions to the phishing emails.An online survey was conducted to assess students' cyber security comprehension level and their responses to phishing emails.The findings of this study indicate that a significant proportion of students' exhibit susceptibility to phishing attacks and demonstrate a lack of awareness regarding the nature of phishing emails.In conclusion the study enhanced students' awareness of cyber security concerns and equip them with the necessary knowledge to safeguard themselves against phishing attacks in both educational settings and real-world scenarios.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.502
Threshold uncertainty score0.297

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.347 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Safety and Security EngineeringSame topicSpam and Phishing DetectionFrench-language works237,207