MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1659346722 · doi:10.20381/ruor-13277

AAPPeC: Agent-based Architecture for Privacy Payoff in eCommerce

2010· preprint· en· W1659346722 on OpenAlexaff
Abdulsalam Yassine

Bibliographic record

VenueuO Research (University of Ottawa) · 2010
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessPersonally identifiable informationAsset (computer security)ReputationValuation (finance)Internet privacyKnowledge managementComputer scienceComputer securityFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the rapid development of applications in open distributed environments such as eCommerce, privacy of information is becoming a critical issue. Today, many online companies are gathering information and have assembled sophisticated databases that know a great deal about many people, generally without the knowledge of those people. Such information changes hands or ownership as a normal part of eCommerce transactions, or through strategic decisions that often includes the sale of users' information to other firms. The key commercial value of users' personal information derives from the ability of firms to identify consumers and charge them personalized prices for goods and services they have previously used or may wish to use in the future. A look at present-day practices reveals that consumers' profile data is now considered as one of the most valuable assets owned by online businesses. In this thesis, we argue the following: if consumers' private data is such a valuable asset, should they not be entitled to commercially benefit from their asset as well? The scope of this thesis is on developing architecture for privacy payoff as a means of rewarding consumers for sharing their personal information with online businesses. The architecture is a multi-agent system in which several agents employ various requirements for personal information valuation and interaction capabilities that most users cannot do on their own. The agents in the system bear the responsibility of working on behalf of consumers to categorize their personal data objects, report to consumers on online businesses' trustworthiness and reputation, determine the value of their compensation using risk-based financial models, and, finally, negotiate for a payoff value in return for the dissemination of users' information.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.726
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueuO Research (University of Ottawa)Same topicPrivacy, Security, and Data ProtectionFrench-language works237,207