MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1519141969

PRIVACY WARS IN CYBERSPACE: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LEGAL AND BUSINESS TENSIONS IN INFORMATION PRIVACY

2002· article· en· W1519141969 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jeanette Teh

Bibliographic record

VenueYale Journal of Law and Technology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicDigital Transformation in Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCyberspacePrivacy policyInformation privacyInternet privacyBusinessPrivacy by DesignComputer securityPrivacy lawPrivacy softwareLaw and economicsComputer scienceSociologyThe InternetWorld Wide Web
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For all its remarkable attributes, the explosive growth in e-commerce and Internet use has had deleterious consequences for the privacy ofparticipating individuals, who are often unaware of the tremendous amount of information about them that is collected and analyzed These disparate bits of data are amalgamated to yield very identifiable consumer profiles, which are subsequently sold to other organizations, depriving the consumers of their ability to control what they divulge about themselves to others, potentially resulting in a loss of individuality and creativity. Through the use of cookies, which provides numerous benefits to both consumers and retailers, the many advantages of ecommerce applications and business models are realized. However, the reliance on industry selfregulation has led to a plethora ofprivacy infractions in cyberspace, resulting in the enactment of the Canadian Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) and the U. S. plan under Bush to introduce privacy legislation after the Federal Trade Commission's recommendation. The task of drafting legislation is wrought with the complexities of balancing the interests of both parties, while attempting to address the tension of employing either overly or under-inclusive language. This difficulty is demonstrated in the analysis of PIPEDA's ambiguities, which is instructive for U S. states seeking to implement similar laws, who should note that privacy legislation ought to mandate full, informed consent through an express and explicit opt-in approach.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.009
Science and technology studies0.0170.089
Scholarly communication0.0330.049
Open science0.0020.011
Research integrity0.0120.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueYale Journal of Law and TechnologySame topicDigital Transformation in LawFrench-language works237,207