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 OpenAlexfundno aff
Michal Sramka

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.

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)0.042
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.101
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.220

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0420.101
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.011
Science and technology studies0.0040.012
Scholarly communication0.0160.024
Open science0.0060.012
Research integrity0.0050.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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

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
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTatra Mountains Mathematical PublicationsSame topicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in DataFrench-language works237,207