MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1579060889 · doi:10.24908/ss.v3i2/3.3499

The Public Politics of Opinion Research on Surveillance and Privacy

2002· article· en· W1579060889 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin D. Haggerty, Amber Gazso

Bibliographic record

VenueSurveillance & Society · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsPublic opinionPolitical scienceSkewInternet privacyPublic relationsSurvey researchSociologyLawComputer scienceSocioeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the political implications of methodological issues related to the now ubiquitous production of surveys dealing with issues of privacy and surveillance. It concentrates on how the distinctive attributes of a survey's response rate can skew the findings of such studies. The conclusion offers suggestions for how academics and activists might respond to this issue.

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)0.245
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.339
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.245
Threshold uncertainty score0.931

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2450.339
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0090.039
Scholarly communication0.0150.014
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0080.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.388
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.097 · 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.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations21
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSurveillance & SocietySame topicSurvey Methodology and NonresponseFrench-language works237,207