MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100656774 · doi:10.1109/aiccsa.2008.4493601

Privacy and the market for private data: A negotiation model to capitalize on private data

2008· article· en· W2100656774 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsset (computer security)NegotiationPrivate information retrievalBusinessValue (mathematics)Consumer privacyInformation privacyMarket dataProcess (computing)Value of informationInternet privacyComputer scienceComputer securityFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The market for consumer information is already a lively market, where consumer information and consumer profile data are often among the most valuable assets owned by online retailers. The value of such commodity derives from the ability of firms to identify consumers and charge them personalized prices flj. We argue that if consumers' identity and personal information is such a valuable asset, should not consumers benefit from their asset as well? In this paper, we propose a negotiation process between an online consumer agent and an online seller. The online consumer agent acts on behalf of consumers to maximize their social welfare. In our model, the agent derives a quantified privacy risk for each private data and uses it to determine a cost premium value to make the bargaining process manageable. We also provide a computational example to evaluate the model.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.675
Threshold uncertainty score0.933

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0020.002
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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPrivacy, Security, and Data ProtectionFrench-language works237,207