Privacy-preserving data publishing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The collection of digital information by governments, corporations, and individuals has created tremendous opportunities for knowledge- and information-based decision making. Driven by mutual benefits, or by regulations that require certain data to be published, there is a demand for the exchange and publication of data among various parties. Data in its original form, however, typically contains sensitive information about individuals, and publishing such data will violate individual privacy. The current practice in data publishing relies mainly on policies and guidelines as to what types of data can be published and on agreements on the use of published data. This approach alone may lead to excessive data distortion or insufficient protection. Privacy-preserving data publishing (PPDP) provides methods and tools for publishing useful information while preserving data privacy. Recently, PPDP has received considerable attention in research communities, and many approaches have been proposed for different data publishing scenarios. In this survey, we will systematically summarize and evaluate different approaches to PPDP, study the challenges in practical data publishing, clarify the differences and requirements that distinguish PPDP from other related problems, and propose future research directions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".