MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412870847 · doi:10.24908/pceea.2025.19637

Developing an Online Cybersecurity Literacy Awareness Module for Post-Secondary Students

2025· article· en· W4412870847 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Shaylee Broadfoot, Raiden Yamaoka, Catherine Tatarniuk, Sina Keshvadi

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInformation and Cyber Security
Canadian institutionsThompson Rivers University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer securityLiteracyInternet privacyComputer scienceBusinessPsychologyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Internet, a cornerstone of modern engineering innovation, has profoundly reshaped our lives. Despite technological advancements in security, cyberattacks are escalating, with user awareness being a critical mitigation factor. This research investigates cybersecurity awareness and online safety practices among postgraduate students at a Canadian university, recognizing the particular importance of digital safety literacy for future engineers who will design, build, and manage critical digital infrastructure. A campus-wide survey assessed students' experiences with online safety incidents and their awareness levels. Findings revealed over 75% encountered incidents, yet fewer than 20% knew relevant Canadian laws, and 87% were unsure how to report issues. Informed by these results, we developed a tailored online safety module covering prevalent threats like phishing, online abuse, and reporting mechanisms, aiming to enhance digital literacy. An initial pilot study focusing specifically on the phishing component was conducted with senior software engineering students to assess its preliminary effectiveness. Results indicated that even students with cybersecurity backgrounds initially struggled with sophisticated phishing attempts. This paper outlines the module design, pilot implementation findings, and discusses implications for enhancing online safety awareness.

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 score0.842
Threshold uncertainty score0.650

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicInformation and Cyber SecurityFrench-language works237,207