A Model for Privacy Compromisation Value
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Privacy concerns exist whenever sensitive data relating to people is collected. Finding a way to preserve and guarantee an individual's privacy has always been of high importance. Some may decide not to reveal their data to protect their privacy. It has become impossible to take advantage of many essential customized services without disclosing any identifying or sensitive data. The challenge is that each data item may have a different value for different individuals. These values can be defined by applying weights that describe the importance of data items for individuals if that particular private data item is exposed. We propose a generic framework to capture these weights from data providers, which can be considered as a mediator to quantify privacy compromisation. This framework also helps us to identify what portion of a targeted population is vulnerable to compromise their privacy in return for receiving certain incentives. Conversely, the model could assist researchers to offer appropriate incentives to a targeted population to facilitate collecting useful 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.
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 | 0.016 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".