A Hierarchical Approach to the Specification of Privacy Preferences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In applications such as e-Health systems, a user's consent should usually be obtained before his/her private information can be disclosed. For this purpose, users need to specify their privacy preferences about what data are to be disclosed to which recipients for what purposes. However, this may become a daunting task in a complicated application that involves potentially a large number of combinations of data recipients, purposes, and granularities of data. This paper proposes a hierarchical approach to address this issue. More specifically, we first observe that hierarchies naturally exist in each dimension of a privacy preference. We then propose a series of methods for users to more conveniently specify their privacy preferences based on such hierarchies. We also define meta-policies to resolve potential conflicts between preferences specified over time. Finally, we discuss how to represent the preferences with a snow- flake schema in backend databases.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".