Information Privacy Status in Saudi Arabia
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
Privacy is one of the most fundamental rights that must be preserved for individuals because it is integral to their integrity, self-respect, and safety. However, it is also a vague concept with a number of controversial issues that need to be addressed from ethical, jurisdictional, and sociological perspectives. The perceptions of both organizations and individuals have undergone noticeable changes since the introduction of communication and processing technologies. Furthermore, with the dominance of the Internet and social networks in business and personal lives, information privacy appears to be a myth as massive volumes of personal information and data are stored in the Cloud and back end systems of organizations. Such systems have created serious legal, ethical, and technological challenges related to information collection, processing, and dissemination. This paper presents the findings of the first phase of a countrywide research project that aims to provide a comprehensive assessment of information privacy practices in the public, health, banking, and private sectors. The results presented in this paper are based on a survey and structured interviews with key stakeholders in multiple organizations in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to measure organizational compliance and personal perceptions of information privacy.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.022 |
| 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 it