MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W806073603

Analysis of Student Vulnerabilities to Phishing.

2008· article· en· W806073603 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Janet L. Bailey, Robert B. Mitchell, Bradley K. Jensen

Bibliographic record

VenueAmericas Conference on Information Systems · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpam and Phishing Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhishingListing (finance)Vulnerability (computing)Internet privacyQuarter (Canadian coin)Computer securityComputer scienceInformation securityPersonally identifiable informationWorld Wide WebThe InternetBusinessFinance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Phishing attacks were responsible for $3.2 billion dollars in losses during 2007 and the number of attacks is increasing daily. According to the United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team, phishing was the top security threat during the first quarter of 2007, comprising 48% of all reported incidents. The purpose of this study was to identify the level of student awareness related to specific phishing tactics. Findings revealed that while students are unlikely to provide personal information in response to an email request, they can be easily tricked by numerous other tactics. This paper reports the findings of the study in addition to listing suggested points to include in classroom discussions on phishing. Education is the most powerful tool available for combating the growing phishing security threat and student vulnerability.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations7
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmericas Conference on Information SystemsSame topicSpam and Phishing DetectionFrench-language works237,207