MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

AI Against Smishing in Kenya: Culturally Adapted SMS Scam Detection for Digital Trust

2025· article· W7128642374 on OpenAlexaff
Japheth Kiplang’at Mursi, Salim Mwarika, Hamid Nach, Naomi Bukusi, Angel Musomba, Wangechi Murimi, Michelle Kiboi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpam and Phishing Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à RimouskiOptech (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecallInclusion (mineral)Precision and recallLogistic regressionMobile deviceFinancial inclusion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Kenya’s mobile-financial ecosystem, driven by M-Pesa and a mobile penetration rate above 133%, has advanced commerce and financial inclusion but also exposed users to SMS-based scams exploiting linguistic diversity, cultural trust, and psychological manipulation. Existing fraud-reporting mechanisms such as keyword filtering and manual reporting, remain reactive and inadequate against these evolving threats. To fill this gap, this study develops a culturally adapted, machine learning–driven approach to SMS scam detection tailored to Kenya’s multilingual environment. Using a crowdsourced dataset of 738 SMS messages (427 scams, 311 legitimate), XGBoost achieved 83.8% accuracy with strong precision and F1-scores, while Logistic Regression offered superior recall (91.8%) in detecting fraudulent content. SHAP analysis revealed urgency cues, code-switching features, and social proof language as the most influential predictors of scams. The proposed model, designed for integration via APIs into USSD platforms, enables real-time detection and fosters user confidence through explainable alerts. This study provides a scalable, context-aware framework for fraud prevention in mobile-first economies and actionable insights for telecom operators, fintech platforms, and policymakers seeking to strengthen digital trust.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.233 · 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.

Study designOther design
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpam and Phishing DetectionFrench-language works237,207