MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1528615804

Building Fortress India: Should a Federal Law Be Created to Address Privacy Concerns in the United States-Indian Business Process Outsourcing Relationship

2006· article· en· W1528615804 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bryan Bertram

Bibliographic record

VenueBoston College international and comparative law review · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicLaw, logistics, and international trade
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutsourcingGuard (computer science)BusinessLegislationEuropean unionLawInternational tradePolitical scienceMarketingComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the past few years, there has been a substantial surge in the use of Indian vendors by U.S. businesses for the performance of business processes. These types of engagements, referred to as business process outsourcing, routinely involve the transfer of sensitive personal data between U.S. and Indian firms. Thus, these types of transfers have raised concerns over the security of such data. The United States currently regulates these data transfers by industry sector. This policy contrasts sharply with other jurisdictions such as Canada, Japan, and the European Union where more broadly defined regulations set principles for the protection of data generally. This Note will examine whether the United States should enact broader based legislation in order to regulate the growing trend of business process outsourcing to India and protect sensitive data that gives rise to personal privacy concerns.

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)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.222 · 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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBoston College international and comparative law reviewSame topicLaw, logistics, and international tradeFrench-language works237,207