Disrupting the scammer lifecycle: A dynamically-consistent numerical analysis of a compartment model for scam-victim dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Online deception and financial scams represent a pervasive threat in the digital age, yet a quantitative analysis and understanding of their propagation is lacking. This study introduces a novel model based on the framework of epidemiological models to describe the interaction between scammers and their victims. We propose a five-compartment deterministic model ($S-V-R-A_s-R_s$) calibrated using longitudinal data in fraud reports from the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre. The model's theoretical properties are established, including the non-negativity of the state variables and the stability threshold defined by the basic reproduction number ($\mathcal{R}_0$). A non-standard finite difference scheme is developed for the numerical simulations to ensure dynamical consistency between the continuous deterministic model and its discrete equivalent. A key finding of the model sensitivity analysis indicates that the proliferation of scams is overwhelmingly driven by the lifecycle of scammers, their recruitment, attrition, and arrest, rather than the susceptibility of the victim population. The results of this study provide strong quantitative evidence that the most effective control strategies are those that directly disrupt the scammers' population. Overall, this study provides a crucial model for designing and evaluating evidence-based policies to combat the scourge of cybercrime.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".