Comparative Analysis of Privacy Concerns in Website Register Process between China and Korea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Personal information privacy is fast becoming one of the most important ethical issues of our information society. Most of Internet users and non-Internet users are concerned about the protection of their privacy information in Internet. This empirical research developed a model based on the Theory of Reasoned Action and Theory of Planning Behavior, which try to address the relationships among protect regulations and differences in concerns for information privacy between China and Korea. This study used structural equation modeling to validate the proposed research model. The result illustrate that the level of concerns for information privacy in Korea is higher than what in China. For Korea, the influence of concern for information privacy is mediated by trust beliefs and administrative regulations. For China, The concern for information privacy of Internet users impacts their risk beliefs and regulation positively, but not affects their trust beliefs. Key words: Privacy information; Website register; SEM modelResume: La confidentialite des informations personnels est en entrain de devenir l'une des plus importantes questions ethiques de notre societe de l'information. La plupart des utilisateurs d'Internet et non-utilisateurs d'Internet sont preoccupes par la protection de leurs confidentialite des renseignement sur Internet. Cette recherche empirique a developpe un modele base sur la theorie de l'action raisonnee et la theorie de la planification du comportement, qui tentent d'aborder les relations entre les reglements de protection et leur differences dans la preoccupation sur les informations privees entre la Chine et la Coree. Cette etude a utilise la modelisation par equation structurelle pour valider le modele de recherche propose. Le resultat montre que le niveau de preoccupations pour la protection des renseignements en Coree est plus eleve qu’en Chine. Pour la Coree, l'influence de preoccupation pour la protection des informations personnelles est mediee par les croyances de fiducie et les reglements administratifs. Pour la Chine, le souci de protection des renseignements personnels des utilisateurs d'Internet a un impact de leurs croyances de risques et la reglementation de maniere positive, mais ne touche pas leur confiance de croyances. Mots cles: Information sur la confidentialite; S’inscrire au site; Le modele SEM
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".