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 OpenAlexaff
Mark Chignell, Anabel Quan‐Haase, Jacek Gwizdka

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.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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

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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations29
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual MeetingSame topicPrivacy, Security, and Data ProtectionFrench-language works237,207