MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411377215 · doi:10.1080/17440572.2025.2517027

Extending drift theory to cybercrime forum participation: the case of digital workers

2025· article· en· W4411377215 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Crime · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersUniversité de Montréal
KeywordsCybercrimeBusinessPublic relationsPolitical scienceInternet privacyComputer scienceThe InternetWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study extends Matza’s concept of drift to cybercrime forum participation, suggesting that participants exist in a liminal state where they are neither fully compliant with legal norms nor explicitly engaged in criminal activity. In this state, criminal involvement can only be confirmed when individuals openly disclose crimes on these forums. This nuance is valuable when studying those who are not fully committed to cybercrime, but remain active in these settings, such as digital workers. Through an analysis of 105 digital workers in cybercrime forums, this study reveals their limited and sporadic engagement, with many contributing benign or ambiguous content. This reflects the neutrality of IT, where criminal intent is often ambiguous. Only a small fraction displayed consistent criminal involvement. Moreover, the findings empirically support Goldsmith and Brewer’s (2015) notion of digital drift, underscoring the fleeting and episodic nature of, in this case, cybercrime forum participation.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.865
Threshold uncertainty score0.421

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.299 · 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