Would Regulation of Web Site Privacy Policy Statements Increase Consumer Trust?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Proponents of e-commerce have known for some time that limited participation by consumers partially reflects their concern over the privacy of personal information. To address consumer concerns, web site operators have employed security mechanisms, including privacy policy statements to increase their perceived trustworthiness. While empirical evidence is limited, there is some question regarding the ability of privacy policy statements to engender significantly greater levels of trust. The limited effectiveness of such statements may reflect their voluntary implementation, self-enforcement, and\or significant variance (protection and enforcement) from one web site to another. One possible remedy would be the imposition of legally mandated statements. This study examined the efficacy of legally mandated privacy policies vis-a-vis both voluntary statements of varying degrees of protection and the absence of any such statement. The results were mixed, as legally mandated privacy policy statements were found to be comparable to strong voluntary statements, but superior to none, weak or moderate policies. Perhaps more important, the nature of the privacy policy statement interacted with type of information requested.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it