Considering Risk Locations When Defining Perturbation Zones for Geomasking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Geomasking techniques are commonly used to mask the true location information of cases by introducing noise into location data. This study seeks to improve the spatially adaptive random perturbation (SARP) geomasking method by using the actual distribution of the residential addresses (or “risk location”) rather than the people (or “risk population”) to define a perturbation zone. The procedure used in the study also employs a “donut-shaped” perturbation zone, rather than the traditional “pancake-shaped” zone, when displacing a case. The effectiveness of the proposed geomasking methods is assessed in terms of their potential to control for location re-engineering and their ability to maintain the point patterns embedded in the real distribution. The authors conclude that SARP geomasking using the distribution of actual street addresses protects privacy more effectively than geomasking based on population size; the different SARP techniques do not significantly change the clustering patterns on a global level, but the geomasked data tend to be more clustered than the real case distribution.
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 | 0.003 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".