MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980378234 · doi:10.1080/10106049.2010.496496

Geomasking sensitive health data and privacy protection: an evaluation using an E911 database

2010· article· en· W1980378234 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeocarto International · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicData-Driven Disease Surveillance
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Environmental Health SciencesNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsAnonymityk-anonymityGeographyCensusPopulationComputer sciencePrivacy protectionDatabaseStatisticsData miningInternet privacyComputer securityMathematicsDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Geomasking is used to provide privacy protection for individual address information while maintaining spatial resolution for mapping purposes. Donut geomasking and other random perturbation geomasking algorithms rely on the assumption of a homogeneously distributed population to calculate displacement distances, leading to possible under-protection of individuals when this condition is not met. Using household data from 2007, we evaluated the performance of donut geomasking in Orange County, North Carolina. We calculated the estimated k-anonymity for every household based on the assumption of uniform household distribution. We then determined the actual k-anonymity by revealing household locations contained in the county E911 database. Census block groups in mixed-use areas with high population distribution heterogeneity were the most likely to have privacy protection below selected criteria. For heterogeneous populations, we suggest tripling the minimum displacement area in the donut to protect privacy with a less than 1% error rate.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.776
Threshold uncertainty score0.579

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.279 · 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