MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058296417 · doi:10.1177/154193120304701102

The Privacy Attitudes Questionnaire (PAQ): Initial Development and Validation

2003· article· en· W2058296417 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

VenueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersonalizationInformation privacyVariety (cybernetics)Privacy policyConstruct (python library)Internet privacyPersonally identifiable informationPerspective (graphical)Privacy by DesignComputer sciencePsychologyComputer securityWorld Wide WebArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Privacy has been identified as a key issue in a variety of domains, including electronic commerce and public policy. While there are many discussions of privacy issues from a legal and policy perspective, there is little information on the structure of privacy as a psychometric construct. Our goal is to develop a method for measuring attitudes towards privacy that can guide the design and personalization of services. This paper reports on the development of an initial version of the PAQ. Four privacy attitudes are identified based on the factor structure of the PAQ. Cluster analysis is used to identify potential stereotypes with respect to attitudes towards privacy amongst different groups of people. Version 1.0 of the PAQ is presented in an Appendix as a 36 item questionnaire that measures the four privacy attitudes of personal information, monitoring, exposure and protection.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 studies0.0040.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.257 · 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