MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988166276 · doi:10.2478/v10127-010-0011-z

Data mining as a tool in privacy-preserving data publishing

2010· article· en· W1988166276 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTatra Mountains Mathematical Publications · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNorway GrantsAlberta InnovatesGeneralitat de CatalunyaGovernment of Alberta
KeywordsPublicationData publishingPublishingData sharingComputer scienceInternet privacyInformation privacyPrivate information retrievalData scienceContrast (vision)Privacy policyData miningComputer securityBusinessPolitical scienceMedicineAdvertising

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Many databases contain data about individuals that are valuable for research, marketing, and decision making. Sharing or publishing data about individuals is however prone to privacy attacks, breaches, and disclosures. The concern here is about individuals’ privacy-keeping the sensitive information about individuals private to them. Data mining in this setting has been shown to be a powerful tool to breach privacy and make disclosures. In contrast, data mining can be also used in practice to aid data owners in their decision on how to share and publish their databases. We present and discuss the role and uses of data mining in these scenarios and also briefly discuss other approaches to private data analysis.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.332
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Open science
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication, Open science
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.456
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.332
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0050.023
Open science0.1840.343
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.245 · 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