MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1581905769 · doi:10.1002/meet.2014.14505101145

Privacy and control in online social profiles: Toward a typology of users

2014· article· en· W1581905769 on OpenAlexaff
Jacquelyn Burkell, Alexandre Fortier

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFocus Groups and Qualitative Methods
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTypologyInternet privacyControl (management)Social network (sociolinguistics)PsychologyFrame (networking)Computer scienceUser-generated contentPersonally identifiable informationSocial controlSocial psychologySociologyWorld Wide WebSocial mediaComputer securityArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT This poster uses Q methodology to investigate subjective perspectives on privacy of and control over social network profiles. Earlier research using interview and focus group techniques suggests that the default conception of online social networks is as public spaces where there is little or no expectation of control over content or distribution. This conception, however, applies largely to information posted by others , and participants frame their own online participation in different ways. The current study explicitly investigates these different subjective perspectives. The results suggest three different user profiles or privacy orientations: one group views their online profiles as spaces for social display, but exert control over content and audience; a second group treats their profiles as spaces for open social display, exercising little control over either content or audience; and a third group views social network profiles as places to post personal information to a controlled audience. These different perspectives lead to different privacy needs and expectations.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.733
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.008
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.333 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the American Society for Information Science and TechnologySame topicFocus Groups and Qualitative MethodsFrench-language works237,207