MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984237017 · doi:10.1145/1735886.1735887

Transparent anonymization

2010· article· en· W1984237017 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

VenueACM Transactions on Database Systems · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNanyang Technological UniversityGlaucoma Research Foundation
KeywordsComputer scienceData publishingAdversaryExploitGuard (computer science)GeneralizationData anonymizationPrivacy protectionComputer securityAdversary modelInformation privacyData miningPublishing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Numerous generalization techniques have been proposed for privacy-preserving data publishing. Most existing techniques, however, implicitly assume that the adversary knows little about the anonymization algorithm adopted by the data publisher. Consequently, they cannot guard against privacy attacks that exploit various characteristics of the anonymization mechanism. This article provides a practical solution tothis problem. First, we propose an analytical model for evaluating disclosure risks, when an adversary knows everything in the anonymization process, except the sensitive values. Based on this model, we develop a privacy principle, transparent l-diversity , which ensures privacy protection against such powerful adversaries. We identify three algorithms that achieve transparent l -diversity, and verify their effectiveness and efficiency through extensive experiments with real data.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesOpen science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.734
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0200.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.241 · 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