MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1605569765

User Perceptions of Privacy and Security on the Web

2005· article· en· W1605569765 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Scott Flinn, Jo Lumsden

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternet privacyThe InternetWorld Wide WebComputer sciencePerceptionInternet usersInformation privacyInternet securityPrivacy policySkepticismPrivacy softwareComputer securityPsychologyInformation securitySecurity service
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes an online survey that was conducted to explore typical Internet users' awareness and knowledge of specific technologies that relate to their security and privacy when using a Web browser to access the Internet. The survey was conducted using an anonymous, online questionnaire. Over a four month period, 237 individuals completed the questionnaire. Respondents were predominately Canadian, with substantial numbers from the United Kingdom and the United States. Important findings include evidence that users have tried to educate themselves regarding their online security and privacy, but with limited success; different interpretations of the term “secure Web site” can lead to very different levels of trust in a site; respondents strongly expressed their skepticism about privacy policies, but nevertheless believe that sites can be trusted to respect their stated policies; and users may confuse browser cookies with other types of data stored locally by browsers, leading to inappropriate conclusions about the risks they present.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations32
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicPrivacy, Security, and Data ProtectionFrench-language works237,207