MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411459434 · doi:10.18280/ijsse.150401

Security of Personal Information in Electronic Payments: A Bibliometric Analysis and Model Extension

2025· article· en· W4411459434 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yu‐Qing Guan, Andrea Tick

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Safety and Security Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtension (predicate logic)PaymentComputer scienceComputer securityData scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The global rise in the use of electronic payments highlights the growing importance of personal information security in this domain.Scholars have explored various aspects of this issue, including payment systems, technological implementations, user acceptance, behavior, and psychological factors.This study aims to identify research gaps and future trends in personal information security in electronic payments through bibliometric analysis.Data was sourced from the Scopus and Web of Science databases, covering the period from 1974 to 2023.The dataset was analyzed using VOSviewer and R-Bibliometrix (Biblioshiny) software.The co-occurrence network output indicates that future research should focus on clusters with lower density and central positions, such as user acceptance of new technologies, consumer behavior, user trust, and user satisfaction with electronic payments.The R-Bibliometrix (Biblioshiny) thematic map identified research gaps across four quadrants: motor themes, niche themes, emerging or declining themes, and basic themes.The study proposes potential research areas in personal information security in electronic payments and develops an extended UTAUT (Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology) model tailored to this field.The study identifies trust and technology acceptance as critical themes and extends the UTAUT model to incorporate personal information security cognition.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.694
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0200.011
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.003
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Safety and Security EngineeringSame topicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in DataCategoryBibliometricsFrench-language works237,207