MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100871660 · doi:10.1109/iri.2007.4296603

Management of Users' Privacy Preferences in Context

2007· article· en· W2100871660 on OpenAlexaff
Dawn Jutla, Peter Bodorik

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's UniversityDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencePrivacy policyContext (archaeology)Privacy softwarePrivacy by DesignInformation privacyUser modelingWorld Wide WebMatching (statistics)Internet privacyHuman–computer interactionUser interface

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been intensive research on user-controlled privacy from the perspective of agent automation of privacy related user tasks. The W3C's Platform for Privacy Preferences (P3P) specifies standards that can be used by P3P agents to automatically retrieve a web-site's privacy policy on how the users' data is collected, stored, and managed, and then to determine whether they are compatible with the user's privacy preferences. Current approaches to managing user's privacy do not capture context, are not user-friendly, and do cater well to the dynamic nature of privacy preferences very well. Clearly, the user's privacy preferences depend on the context of the user's online activity and the user's preferences evolve with user's experience and changing levels of trust in various organizations and domains. We propose a model for user's privacy preferences that incorporates the context for user activity and we apply it using a Case-based Reasoning (CBR) approach that relates the current activity to previous activities stored in the case-base and thus forms an intuitive and understandable process. We describe the context model for privacy preferences, how CBR is used to create a new contextual case from the web-site's privacy policy and the user's current activity, and how the CBR retrieves matching cases to be applied to the retrieved privacy policy.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.427
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations8
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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