MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7131650793 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.18779255

Cybersecurity Protocols for Financial Systems in East Africa: An Analysis

2003· article· en· W7131650793 on OpenAlexaff
Mpho Motshekoe, Sipho Khumalo, Nomsa Maseko

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInformation and Cyber Security
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMalwareData breachThematic analysisFinancial crisisFinancial servicesEmerging marketsBest practiceCritical infrastructure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cybersecurity threats to financial systems are increasing globally, including in East Africa where cyber-attacks on banking and other financial institutions have grown significantly. The research employs a systematic review of existing cybersecurity policies, industry reports, and academic studies from the last five years, focusing on South African financial institutions to identify common threats and propose tailored mitigation measures. A thematic analysis revealed that malware attacks are the most prevalent threat in financial systems across East Africa, with an estimated $50 million annual loss attributed to such incidents. The findings suggest a significant gap between current cybersecurity protocols and emerging cyber risks. Current protocols need immediate upgrading to address the evolving nature of cyber threats, particularly focusing on enhanced detection mechanisms and employee training programmes. Financial institutions in East Africa should implement real-time threat monitoring systems and invest in regular staff training programmes to improve their cybersecurity posture against emerging risks. Model estimation used $\hat{\theta}=argmin_{\theta}\sum_i\ell(y_i,f_\theta(x_i))+\lambda\lVert\theta\rVert_2^2$, with performance evaluated using out-of-sample error.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.794
Threshold uncertainty score0.618

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicInformation and Cyber SecurityFrench-language works237,207