2018
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-662-56672-5_4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Assessing Opinions on Software as a Weapon in the Context of (Inter)national Security

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2024
2024
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 15 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Machine learning techniques are recurrent among the methodological sets found in the selected literature, as observed in the previously listed works. Nonetheless, other groups of methods were recommended for further research developments, such as multicriteria methods for decision support in planning activities for criminal combat [30]; social network analysis to find hidden patterns of illegal activities [84]; traditional statistical methods to support the analysis of opinions about security threats using information collected via questionnaires [98]; bio-inspired algorithms to simulate security threats or risks [97]; the combination of graphs and neural networks to assist in answering key investigation questions [99].…”
Section: Methodological Extensionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Machine learning techniques are recurrent among the methodological sets found in the selected literature, as observed in the previously listed works. Nonetheless, other groups of methods were recommended for further research developments, such as multicriteria methods for decision support in planning activities for criminal combat [30]; social network analysis to find hidden patterns of illegal activities [84]; traditional statistical methods to support the analysis of opinions about security threats using information collected via questionnaires [98]; bio-inspired algorithms to simulate security threats or risks [97]; the combination of graphs and neural networks to assist in answering key investigation questions [99].…”
Section: Methodological Extensionsmentioning
confidence: 99%