MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1932448580

The privacy paradox: laying Orwell's ghost to rest.

2001· article· en· W1932448580 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ross Upshur, B. Morin, Vivek Goel

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Research and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRest (music)Computer scienceLayingWorld Wide WebInternet privacyData scienceComputer securityMedicineAstronomyPhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1and conjure up images of an Orwellian world void of privacy, with remote and faceless overseers tracking one’s every move. Surveys indicate that Canadians are concerned about the security of their health information and would resist the use of their data without their consent. 2 Although they wish to be informed and to give consent, they do not agree about how this should be done. In a survey in Saskatchewan, 62.9% of respondents agreed that “to receive informed consent, health professionals would need to provide details of every anticipated use of health 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 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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.129

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.048
Scholarly communication0.0100.025
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0180.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.219
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations24
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicMedical Research and PracticesFrench-language works237,207