PRISM and privacy: will this change everything?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both the offline and online media have reported extensively on access by the US National Security Agency (NSA) to electronic communications data held by private companies, most notably via the so-called PRISM program. Meanwhile, there is growing concern regarding reports the UK's Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) is conducting massive surveillance of communications traffic both on its own behalf and for the benefit of other members of the ‘Five Eyes Alliance’ (comprising the UK, the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand), and other European governments have been reported to have entered into arrangements to share the data collected by the USA and the UK. At least one European government (France) allegedly also runs a vast electronic surveillance operation of its own. We hesitate to make pronouncements about such developments before the facts are clear, but feel justified in predicting that they will have significant long-term impacts on data protection and privacy law around the world, and on the political, economic, and social climate for data processing.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it